Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Ron DeSantis’s re-election as governor of Florida was one of the few bright spots for Republicans in an otherwise disappointing 2022 midterm election. DeSantis originally won the governorship by less than half a percentage point in 2018. in 2022, he defeated his Democratic opponent (and former Republican governor) Charlie Crist by more than 19% of the vote.

For the first time in years, Donald Trump may have a serious challenger to his domination of the Republican Party. Donors, media figures and other conservative elites are flocking to DeSantis.

The contrasts with Trump are obvious. DeSantis won re-election while Trump lost, and many Republicans hold Trump responsible for their losses this year. DeSantis’s allies also point to his policy victories, something largely missing from Trump’s presidency.

But winning a Republican primary requires winning over large numbers of evangelical Christians, and for them the calculus of victory is more complex than “check out the scoreboard”. Trump has always promised them a victory much bigger than legislative triumphs or even election wins. While DeSantis represents the orthodox conservative Christian uses of political power, Trump appeals to those who believe that only an apocalypse can save America.

The Kingdom of God

One of the most important Christian narratives is triumph over death, embodied in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and promised one day to all God’s people. Death is not just beaten, but humiliated. In the New Testament book of 1 Corinthians, the Apostle Paul taunts “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

There will be other reversals of earthly fortune, because God’s grace does not follow established social convention. In the parable of the vineyard workers, Jesus tells his followers that in the Kingdom of God “the last shall be first, and the first last”.

Read more:
After Trump, what is the future of the Republican Party?

This passage has historically inspired enslaved and oppressed peoples to find a message of liberation in the gospels. But it has also encouraged relatively well-off people to imagine themselves as the persecuted “last” who will one day be first by God’s grace.

For orthodox Christians (referring not to Eastern Orthodox churches, but all adherents to core Christian creeds), politicians are not supposed to promise the Kingdom of God. The state and the Kingdom of God are separate realms, as Jesus himself explains. Nonetheless, political power has had important uses for Christians ever since Emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.

The Kingdom of DeSantis

Ron DeSantis exemplifies the orthodox American use of political power for conservative Christian ends. While he uses the updated language of fighting “wokeness”, DeSantis has used the governor’s office to pursue a time-honoured culture war agenda in Florida, reasserting the primacy of traditional family structures and gender roles and keeping children away from material that may conflict with their parents’ beliefs. DeSantis’s message of victory on election night was “Florida is where woke goes to die”.

DeSantis learnt from Trump that evangelical Christians don’t care much about the personal piety of their candidates. They want fighters, not Sunday school teachers. He taps into the idea that secular authorities are persecuting Christians in America, an old claim that has also been a centrepiece of Trump’s appeal to evangelicals.

But there are limits to how much DeSantis can emulate Trump. While DeSantis sounds like a politician with a law degree, Trump sounds like a tent revival prophet. Rather than rearguard culture war actions, Trump promises the redemption of America.

The Kingdom of Trump

In his first presidential run, Trump was notable for his scathing “American carnage” speeches about the fallen state of the nation. It was rare to hear an American politician talk his country down like that, but it appealed to Christians who thought that even their own leaders didn’t understand how bad things were.

His speeches this year are even darker. While DeSantis complains about “woke corporations”, Trump talks about “cesspools of blood”.

Trump’s vows to restore America’s glory and punish its enemies without mercy resonate with evangelicals, who long for a day of reckoning when everyone will be held to account. As president, Trump always hinted that bigger things were around the corner. In the words of Kimberley Guilfoyle at the Republican National Convention, “the best is yet to come!”.

In contrast, Trump warned that if Joe Biden won the 2020 election, “there will be no God” in America.

Even Trump’s “stolen election” claims fit a death and resurrection narrative. Remembering his remarkable 2016 victory in defiance of the polls, Trump’s most ardent supporters expect him to ultimately triumph, one way or another, despite the appearance of defeat in 2020.

Orthodox Christian politicians do promise such things, but Trump is not an orthodox Christian.

Trump’s original pool of evangelical Christian supporters included many Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians. Pentecostals and Charismatics are huge in number, but have often been marginalised by more powerful evangelical groups because of their physicality and their beliefs in personal prophecy and spiritual warfare. Some evangelical leaders have denounced Trump’s “spiritual adviser” Paula White as a heretic.

For many Pentecostals and Charismatics, Trump was such a radical break from political norms that he represented the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. They likened him to biblical figures like Cyrus the Great, a pagan king who was nevertheless chosen to save God’s people.

A subset of evangelicals known as Premillennial Dispensationalists saw Trump’s decision to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as a necessary step for bringing about Christ’s rule on Earth and the final confrontation with Satan.

This apocalyptic style does not appeal to all conservative evangelicals, but in 2016 more orthodox-minded Christians couldn’t unite around a single candidate in opposition to Trump. Now, after six years of Trump influencing evangelical subculture and bringing previously marginal views to the centre of it, any challenger to Trump seeking evangelical votes faces a daunting task.

How abortion could make or destroy the 2024 Republican candidate

The most complicated issue in any contest between Trump and DeSantis could be abortion.

In 2016, Trump promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v Wade, the framework that had kept abortion legal in all states for nearly five decades. The Dobbs decision in 2022 overturning Roe was a direct consequence of Trump’s three appointments.

Read more:
The end of Roe v. Wade would likely embolden global anti-abortion activists and politicians

Trump’s supporters can point to the fulfilment of this longstanding conservative dream as far more significant than anything DeSantis has achieved, and Trump quickly claimed credit for it. But he reportedly also worried that Republican legislators were going too far for voters with abortion bans, and that the issue could hurt him politically in 2024.

He was right to worry. The abortion issue is widely recognised as one of the main reasons Republicans did so poorly in the midterm elections.

Before the Dobbs decision, DeSantis signed a law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks in Florida, with no exemptions for cases of rape or incest. The law survived a legal challenge and DeSantis suspended a state attorney who refused the enforce the law.

After Dobbs, which allows for even more extensive abortion bans, DeSantis said Florida would “expand pro-life protections” but has so far declined to say what these would be. Some Florida Republicans may push for tougher restrictions after making big gains in the state legislature at the midterms.

Both Trump and DeSantis would have difficult decisions to make about whether to try to outflank each other on the abortion issue, or to distance themselves from Republican extremism. Abortion bans are increasingly unpopular even in the Republican Party, but these are among the most prized goals of religious activists who vote in Republican primaries.

Primary contests are highly unpredictable, and there is little current polling on how evangelical Christians compare the two most likely candidates. Trump secured 81% of the white evangelical vote in the 2020 election, but a contest with DeSantis could open deep divides among evangelical conservatives – at least until the winner faces a Democrat.

David Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Evangelical Christians are crucial voters in Republican primaries. Would they support DeSantis or Trump? – https://theconversation.com/evangelical-christians-are-crucial-voters-in-republican-primaries-would-they-support-desantis-or-trump-194914

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Pawson, Professor of Housing Research and Policy, and Associate Director, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

The numbers of people who are homeless have risen sharply across Australia, with soaring housing costs emerging as the biggest driver of the increase. The Australian Homelessness Monitor 2022, released today, reports that the average monthly number of people using homelessness services increased by 8% in the four years to 2021-22. That’s double the population growth rate over that period.

Just as in other countries, the 2020 COVID-19 emergency accommodation programs achieved sudden reductions in rough sleeping in cities such as Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. But these remarkable gains were only temporary.

Read more:
States housed 40,000 people for the COVID emergency. Now rough sleeper numbers are back on the up

In the first major homelessness analysis spanning the COVID crisis years, we also show numbers have been rising in some parts of the country at rates far above the national trend. The problem has been growing especially rapidly in non-metropolitan areas. This trend is consistent with the boom in regional housing prices and, more especially, rents sparked by the pandemic.

The homelessness that has long been a sad feature of our biggest cities has clearly spread to regional and rural Australia.

Many other patterns in the changing scale and nature of homelessness in Australia are ongoing trends that pre-date the 2020-21 public health emergency. This period appears to have had relatively little effect on these trajectories, which include a growing proportion of older adults, as well as First Nations peoples and those affected by mental ill-health.

As the chart below shows, unaffordable housing is playing an increasing role in people becoming homeless.

Social housing programs are welcome but overdue

The pandemic triggered significant and welcome commitments to social housing programs by the new federal government and some state governments. The recent federal budget confirmed funding for 20,000 new social housing dwellings over five years.

Several states had already announced a set of self-funded programs of a similar scale as part of their post-COVID economic recovery measures.

Social housing offers secure tenancies at below-market rents. It’s a crucial resource for both preventing and resolving homelessness.

Read more:
1 million homes target makes headlines, but can’t mask modest ambition of budget’s housing plans

Together, these new programs will – at least temporarily – halt the long-term decline in social housing capacity. The sector’s share of the nation’s housing stock has been shrinking for most of the past 25 years.

By our reckoning, the government programs should deliver a net increase of about 9,000 social rental dwellings in 2024. This will be the first year for decades in which enough dwellings will be built to maintain the sector’s share of Australia’s occupied housing stock.

But sustaining this achievement will require more funding beyond the current commitments. Otherwise, the decline will resume.

Affordability is the big issue, but some need other help

As a recent Productivity Commission report acknowledged, homelessness is primarily a housing problem. In its words, “fundamentally, homelessness is a result of not being able to afford housing”.

While other reasons do contribute to some people becoming homeless, most people experiencing homelessness have no long-term need for personal support. And many who do have high support needs can access and keep tenancies when suitable affordable housing is available.

Read more:
‘I’ve been on the waiting list for over 20 years’: why social housing suitable for people with disabilities is desperately needed

At the same time, the most disadvantaged rough sleepers may require a great deal of help to overcome their problems. The widely acclaimed “housing first” model successfully does this. As other recent research emphasises, for many chronic rough sleepers helped into secure housing, withdrawing such support – even after three years – markedly increases their risk of becoming homeless again.

Australian governments need to better recognise the case for expanding the supply of permanent supportive housing. This involves integrating long-term affordable housing with ongoing support services where required.

Only a few such projects operate in Australia. There is no general framework to fund them, especially the support services.

Lengthy rough sleeping is typically a symptom of societal failure. All too often, for those affected, this failure starts from infancy.

Read more:
Eliminating most homelessness is achievable. It starts with prevention and ‘housing first’

Housing the chronically homeless pays for itself

The Productivity Commission report advocated a “high-needs-based [social] housing subsidy to ensure housing is affordable and tenancies can be sustained”. Logically, since this is essentially a social work (not social security) responsibility, it is the states and territories, and not the Commonwealth, that should bear the cost.

This may sound like a big ask for underfunded governments. But state and territory budgets stand to benefit from avoiding the costs that recurrent and chronic homelessness imposes on departments such as health and justice. As our previous research shows, we spend enormous amounts of public money responding to the consequences of leaving people in a state of chronic homelessness.

A model for funding permanent supportive housing needs to be developed. Ideally, this process should involve all Australian governments, perhaps as part of discussions to advance the National Housing and Homelessness Plan. Federal Labor pledged this project will take shape in 2023.

More broadly, these deliberations must be underpinned by recognition that our current ways of developing, operating and commodifying housing produce homelessness. A plan to end homelessness requires a plan to overhaul our housing system so it produces enough suitable and affordable housing for all Australians.

Read more:
The market has failed to give Australians affordable housing, so don’t expect it to solve the crisis

The authors acknowledge research funder Launch Housing.

Hal Pawson receives funding from Launch Housing, the Australian Research Council, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and Crisis UK.

Cameron Parsell receives funding from Launch Housing, as well as the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Homeless numbers have jumped since COVID housing efforts ended – and the problem is spreading beyond the big cities – https://theconversation.com/homeless-numbers-have-jumped-since-covid-housing-efforts-ended-and-the-problem-is-spreading-beyond-the-big-cities-194624

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Australians are getting older, sicker, and harder to treat. This isn’t news to GPs, who say they are overwhelmed with demand and frustrated with a rigid system that doesn’t support them.

To improve general practice, the Albanese government has set aside almost a billion dollars and convened a Strengthening Medicare Taskforce to advise how to spend it. Many people argue recruiting more GPs is the best path forward.

But as a new Grattan Institute report shows, Australia has plenty of GPs – although they’re not always in the right areas. What we lack are supporting clinicians to help GPs respond to a growing tide of chronic disease.

Read more:
Some GPs just keep their heads above water. Other doctors’ businesses are more profitable than law firms

General practice is becoming more complex

One reason many GPs feel overwhelmed is because their patients are getting sicker. More patients have multiple conditions that need to be managed by their GP, and the proportion with more than one chronic condition has been estimated at nearly half.

Managing these patients is more complex and takes more time, but Medicare does not reward GPs for longer consultations. Average consultation length has been stuck at between 14 and 15 minutes since 2002, despite the increasing complexity of patients’ needs.

Australia has many GPs

To help general practices meet this demand, peak bodies have called for more GPs, and to attract them to the specialty through higher pay.

It’s true that many places in Australia, particularly some rural areas, don’t have enough GPs. And the pandemic has led to a surge in demand everywhere, with wait times spiking after years of steady decline.

But at a national level, almost all the indicators suggest GP supply is stronger than ever. As our report shows, Australia has more GPs per person than ever before, more GPs than most wealthy countries, and record numbers of GPs in training.

GPs need more support

While the supply of GPs has grown, more GPs alone can’t manage the rising tide of chronic disease, or the growing pressure on many general practices. Instead, we need to make general practice a team sport.

Team-based care is increasingly used in general practice overseas. But compared with similar countries, Australian GPs have little support.

About three-quarters of clinical staff in Australian general practice are GPs, with nurses making up almost all the remaining quarter. And those nurses don’t get to help as much as they want, with three-quarters saying they face barriers to using all their skills.

Other countries have different types of workers that Australia lacks. Germany has about 400,000 medical assistants, providing administrative and clinical support in general practice, while Australia has only about 100. England has about one supporting clinician for every GP, three times as many as Australia. In the United States, nurse practitioners and physician assistants deliver about 11% of all medical services outside hospitals. In Australia they would deliver less than 0.1%.

Read more:
General practices are struggling. Here are 5 lessons from overseas to reform the funding system

Team care is good for everyone

Evidence overwhelmingly confirms these and many other clinicians can share parts of a GP’s load with the same safety and quality of care. Studies suggest well-implemented team care can improve quality of care, patient safety and health outcomes, as well as reducing demand on hospitals.

It also makes GPs’ jobs more manageable, impactful and satisfying. By sharing simpler care with other team members, GPs can spend more time working with more complex patients.

It also creates time for other types of work: planning, improving care, maintaining oversight of the team’s care, and consulting with other specialists. While a GP’s clinical work will be more complex, they will also have more time to do other vital aspects of their role.

Emerging trials in many states (such as the pharmacist-prescribing trials in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria) have also made it clear task-sharing is happening – with GPs, or without them.

Unlike these trials, our recommendations focus on bringing new workforces into general practice, not taking care out.

Read more:
Should pharmacists be able to prescribe common medicines like antibiotics for UTIs? We asked 5 experts

What needs to change?

GPs might think this sounds like a fantasy that would never work for them. That’s because for most clinics, it will only be possible if there are fundamental changes to how the system is run.

The first barrier is funding. General practices lose revenue if they have anyone other than a GP deliver care. Medicare does not fund practice pharmacists, physiotherapists, practice nurses, nurse practitioners or Indigenous health workers to work to their full skill level.

Other workforces, such as physician assistants, community paramedics and medical assistants, are not funded to provide care at all.

General practices should be able to opt into a new funding model which, as well as paying GPs for each appointment, gives them a budget for ongoing care of each patient. This would enable GPs to expand their team, and give them funding even when another team member is providing care. Most wealthy countries use this kind of funding model.

The second barrier is regulation. An independent commission should advise government on how different roles should be regulated, to make sure workers can safely use all their skills.

Finally, taking away barriers isn’t enough. As other countries have found, change needs financial support.

The federal government should use Strengthening Medicare funding to roll out 1,000 new nurses, physiotherapists, mental health clinicians, pharmacists and other allied health workers in the highest-need communities, to work in general practices alongside GPs, providing fee-free care.

Read more:
The physio will see you now. Why health workers need to broaden their roles to fix the workforce crisis

The shift to team-based general practice won’t be easy. It will require changes in how practices are designed and operate, and enough funding, time and training for teams to work well together. This should be recognised with more funding and sustained expert support.

Although it will be hard, the payoff will be worth it. GPs will be free to choose a model with more support and more sustainable workloads. Government will be able to reduce the biggest gaps in access and outcomes. And patients will have more time with their general practice team, quicker access when they need it, and better care.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How do you fix general practice? More GPs won’t be enough. Here’s what to do – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-fix-general-practice-more-gps-wont-be-enough-heres-what-to-do-195447

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Wainwright, System lead – Sustainable Corporates, Monash University

About half of Australia’s biggest listed companies have plans to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, our new analysis has found.

We assessed the climate change commitments of 187 companies out of 200 listed on the Australian Stock Exchange – the ASX200. Together, these 187 companies produce 32% of Australia’s operational emissions – that is, emissions produced directly from a business’ operations or from the use of its energy products.

The net-zero plans represent a significant step for climate change action in Australia.

Property developer Lendlease, for example, aims to achieve absolute zero carbon by 2040. Fortescue Metals Group, meanwhile, plans to reach net-zero emissions along its entire value chain by 2040.

But more must be done by Australian companies.

Importantly, the net-zero plans we identified typically don’t include all emissions associated with a business’ operations, such as fossil fuel burned by customers. And much of the action promised will come too late to avert catastrophic global warming.

Comparing commitments

Meeting the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5℃ is imperative if we’re to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

So, we set out to examine whether the net-zero corporate commitments of some of Australia’s biggest companies were in line with the crucial 1.5℃ goal, as well as three best practice principles:

1. a net-zero commitment by or before 2050

2. at least one appropriate and ambitious short or medium-term target

3. address scope 3 emissions.

We collected data in March and in November this year on the 187 ASX200 companies with operations in Australia. Our data coverage doesn’t extend beyond Australia’s borders.

We examined three types of emissions:

• Scope 1: those directly generated by a company’s operations, such as a steel manufacturer burning fuel on site in its blast furnace
• Scope 2: indirect emissions occurring from energy purchased and used by a company
• Scope 3: indirect emissions along the wider value-chain, which includes the raw materials required to make a product, transporting it, and emissions caused by others using the product.

From the March data, we found 84 of the 187 ASX200 companies had net-zero targets for scope 1 and 2 emissions. Some 96% of these emissions were covered by the targets. And 68% of these were covered by 1.5℃-aligned targets.

Of the 187 companies assessed, 100 had no net-zero commitment. But many of these were in relatively low-emitting sectors, such as communications, and hotels and restaurants.

Read more:
Why it doesn’t make economic sense to ignore climate change in our recovery from the pandemic

Most technology solutions required to decarbonise these sectors are already commercially viable, such as switching to renewables and increasing energy efficiency. But without action, emissions from these sectors are expected to rise.

Scope 3 emissions can be trickier to measure and address because a company has less visibility and influence over their suppliers and customers. Only 92 of the companies we assessed disclosed any scope 3 data. Of these, 21 companies had a net-zero target and only 16 were 1.5℃-aligned.

This means 71% of reported scope 3 emissions were not covered by net-zero commitments. Given scope 3 emissions typically comprise more than two-thirds of an organisation’s emissions overall, this is significant.

We similarly noted a lack of short (2022-2025) and medium-term (2026-2039) commitments. This means a lot of the promised action would come too late this decade to keep the goal of 1.5℃ alive.

Only 57 companies assessed had any interim emissions reduction targets for scope 1 and 2 emissions, and only 33 had 1.5℃-aligned interim targets.

This implies the ASX200 is overspending its carbon budget by 36%. A carbon budget is how much carbon can still be released into the atmosphere before we exceed a global warming threshold, in this case 1.5℃.

Read more:
Stripping carbon from the atmosphere might be needed to avoid dangerous warming – but it remains a deeply uncertain prospect

Momentum is gathering

We tracked the progress of these companies up until last month – and saw notable momentum compared to the March data.

As at November, 23 of Australia’s largest companies had all emissions under 1.5℃-aligned, net-zero targets. This represents a 44% increase since March.

There was a 40% increase in scope 3 net-zero targets, all of which were 1.5℃-aligned. And 20-30% more companies had interim targets.

For example, Origin Energy is responsible for approximately 10% of the ASX200 reported scope 3 emissions. It now aims to reach net-zero across all emissions scopes by 2050.

Overall, this means 62% of emissions reported by the companies studied are covered by some sort of net-zero target, up from 56% of reported emissions in March.

The resulting estimated carbon budget overspend for scope 1 and 2 emissions is 24%. This is a significant reduction from 36% in March.

We need strong commitments from everyone

The momentum in the last six months demonstrates increasing corporate confidence, willingness, and an understanding of what’s required to reach net-zero emissions.

But 38% of reported ASX200 emissions are not yet covered by net-zero commitments. And it’s fair to assume that more emissions have not been disclosed.

Australian companies stand to benefit from the transition to clean energy, thanks to the continent’s wealth of natural resources, like sun, wind, and critical minerals. There’s much opportunity for companies to dial up their ambition, particularly in the energy sector where solutions are readily available today.

The costs of not acting strongly are tangible. The analysis highlights the importance of transparent reporting to track progress and hold companies accountable.

If Australia’s leading corporations don’t fully disclose their emissions, they risk exposing themselves to hardening consumer, investor and regulator expectations. For example, scope 3 emissions are the largest source of emissions, yet they’re the least reported.

Read more:
‘Toxic cover-up’: 6 lessons Australia can draw from the UN’s scathing report on greenwashing

To avoid accusations of greenwashing, companies must go beyond setting targets. Any commitment needs to be backed up by a robust strategy, followed by demonstrable action and investment to give us confidence that it can be met.

This is the crucial decade for climate action. The recent momentum towards 1.5℃ shown by Australia’s leading corporations provides evidence they recognise the importance of this goal, and can see a path to get there.

Hopefully, the momentum translates to tangible progress, where Australia’s largest and most influential companies bring their peers and value chains along with them to a low-emissions future.

Tom Wainwright is part of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-based income from federal, state and local government and private sector organisations. Climateworks Centre receives funding from several philanthropic foundations, and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities.

Coral Bravo is part of Climateworks Centre which receives funding from philanthropy and project-based income from federal, state and local government and private sector organisations. Climateworks Centre receives funding from several philanthropic foundations, and project-specific financial support from a range of private and public entities.

– ref. Half of Australia’s biggest companies have net-zero emissions plans, but climate action may come too late – https://theconversation.com/half-of-australias-biggest-companies-have-net-zero-emissions-plans-but-climate-action-may-come-too-late-195727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Esperanza Vera-Toscano, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

An increasing number of Australian children are going to private high schools, new research shows.

The latest Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Annual Statistical Report has found an increasing number of students going to public schools over non-government (Catholic and other private) schools for the primary years.

But once students get to high school, the trend is significantly reversed.

Primary school enrolments

The HILDA survey tells the story of the same group of Australians over the course of their lives. Starting in 2001, the survey now tracks more than 17,500 people in 9,500 households. In years 2012, 2016 and 2020, it collected information regarding each child in the household attending school.

The just-released data from 2020 of the HILDA survey found the majority of Australian school kids go to a public primary school and that proportion is growing. Almost 67% of primary school children were enrolled in government schools in 2012. This grew to almost 73% by 2020.

At the same time, there was a dip in primary school enrolments for Catholic and other private schools. Catholic enrolments went from 19.4% to 15.1%, while other private enrolments dropped from nearly 12.7% to 10.9%.

However, by high school, a different trend can be seen.

Private school enrolments

In 2012, 63.4% of high school children were enrolled in government schools. This dropped to 57.2% by 2020.

Catholic enrolments in high school also dipped from 20.9% to 17.8%. But other private schools saw a significant increase: from 13.5% in 2012 to 22.9% in 2020. This is a jump of almost 70%.

The fees for non-government schools are significant, and on the whole are increasing. In 2012, the average fee for a Catholic primary school was A$2,024 per year. For other private schools it was $6,621.

In high school it was $5,477 for Catholic students and $12,407 for other private schools.

By, 2020, fees had increased by 28.5% for Catholic primary school students and 24.5% for Catholic high school students. For other private school students, fees had actually dropped by 4.5% in primary schools, while high school fees had increased slightly by 5.3%.

Private schooling and academic success

While there are many options for schools in Australia, where you live and your financial resources will affect what is available to you.

So, why do so many families pay for private schools, particularly for high school?

Read more:
Going to private school won’t make a difference to your kid’s academic scores

High marks and successful university entrance results are obvious reasons. However, research in Australia and worldwide shows the exam scores of children who attended private schools are no different to those in public schools, after accounting for socio-economic background.

That is, the academic achievement of expensive private schools might say more about the families (and their incomes and education levels) who send their children to those schools, rather than anything particularly unique to the school’s teaching and learning.

So, what are the reasons for this increase?

While our 2020 study did not specifically ask parents about their school choices, we did ask them about the levels of satisfaction with their children’s school experience and other various education outcomes.

We found parents of students who attended private schools (both at primary and high-school levels) self-rated the quality of education higher than Catholic or public school parents. For high school parents this was 8.4 in 2020, compared to 7.9 (Catholic) and 7.5 (government).

They were also more likely to declare their their children’s overall achievement as “excellent” or “above average” (65.1%, compared to
51.7% in Catholic schools and 47.3% in government schools).

Meanwhile, 71.9% of private school parents expected their children to go to university, compared to 67% of Catholic school parents and 47.8% of government school parents.

This suggests parents are sending their children to private schools because they think it will give them a better education.

Bullying and behaviour

There is also a chance that they believe their child will face less social and behavioural issues at private schools. Parents of public school students were more likely to say their child had been bullied at both primary and high school.

In primary school, 23.4% of public school parents said their child had been bullied, compared to 19.2% for Catholic parents and 15.4% for other private school parents.

Read more:
Why do kids bully? And what can parents do about it?

In high school, 20% of public school parents reported bullying compared to 11.5% for the Catholic system and 15.6% for other private schools.

Moreover, in high school, 20.9% of public school parents said they had been contacted by the school for “poor behaviour”, compared to 13.1% for Catholic school parents and 15.3% for other private school parents.

Different attitudes for different stages of school?

Results from the HILDA survey seem to indicate parents may have different motivations around school choice for the primary and secondary years.

For primary school, parents may want to send the children to a local (free) public school because they are understandably not as focused on exam results and career prospects.

Read more:
As another elite boys’ school goes co-ed, are single-sex schools becoming an endangered species?

But for high school, they may think the extra financial investment is worth it and want a certain type of culture or value system for their teenagers to grow up and study in. Their ideas about academic excellence, citizenship and friendship networks may become more important to try and ensure their children’s desired success in life.

But given access to free, good-quality education is a fundamental right in Australia, these figures are a concern. Parents should not have to pay to get (what they believe is) a better education. And any family, regardless of their income or where they live, should be able to access quality education for their children.

Esperanza Vera-Toscano is employed in the HILDA Survey project which is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services.

– ref. Australian private high school enrolments have jumped 70% since 2012 – https://theconversation.com/australian-private-high-school-enrolments-have-jumped-70-since-2012-195714

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Wooden, Professorial Fellow, The University of Melbourne

The shift to working from home is unlikely to reverse.

Data from the HILDA (Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia) Survey released on Monday show the proportion of Australians working “most hours” from home jumped from around 6% before the pandemic to 21% in 2020. Unpublished data available to researchers shows a further jump to 24% in 2021.

While the rise was most pronounced in Victoria (which was in lockdown when the 2020 survey was conducted) there were big increases in all states except Tasmania.

Working from home increased in every industry but agriculture. It increased the most in industries dominated by office jobs.

Easier to work at home, or harder?

The 2020 survey asked those who had increased their hours working at home whether their ability to do their jobs was “much better”, “a little better”, “about the same”, “a little worse”, or “much worse”.

There are arguments in each direction. On one hand, working from home can give workers greater control of their time, making it easier to balance work and non-work activities. And at-home workers often report fewer meetings and interruptions, meaning work at home can be less stressful.

On the other hand, working from home can blur boundaries between work and non-work time, pushing work into unsocial hours. And it can mean workers spend more time isolated, without the opportunity to interact with colleagues.

Read more:
About that spare room: employers requisitioned our homes and our time

What the survey found was that the proportion of these workers who reported negative effects on their ability to do their job (42%) far outweighed the proportion who reported positive effects (24%).

Another way of looking at the result is to say that given that one-third of those working more at home reported little change in their ability to do the job, more than half found things no worse.

Although the number reporting negative effects outnumbering the number reporting positive effects might seem surprising, it is less surprising given that many of the people who suddenly had to work from home in 2020 lacked dedicated workspaces and had to share space with other household members working at home and children forced to learn remotely.

In non-pandemic times, when working from home is voluntary and home workspaces are better set up, assessments are likely to be more positive.

Women feel better off, men not much

The 2020 HILDA Survey found minimal effects of working from home on job satisfaction. But preliminary unpublished research we have undertaken on data from the 2021 survey paints a different picture – one divided on gender lines.

Focusing on people employed in both 2019 and 2021, and controlling for worker characteristics, we find a significant positive association between changes in the extent of working from home and changes in job satisfaction among women, but not men.

Furthermore, the improvement among women is concentrated on women with children.

The largest increase is found for those who work two days in the workplace and three days at home.

For mothers who shifted to the two-day/three-day arrangement, average job satisfaction increased by around 0.9 of a point on the scale of zero to ten, which amounted to a 12% improvement.

The findings suggest the main benefit for workers from working from home arises from the improved ability to combine work and family responsibilities – something that matters to women more than men as they continue to shoulder the bulk of home and care work.

Greater opportunities to work from home should thus lead to the greater involvement of mothers in paid work. This is a good thing. But there is at least one potential problem.

Working from home can be a trap

It is well-established that the workers visibly present in a workplace are more likely to be promoted and get extra responsibilities than the workers who are not.

If women become less visibly present at a faster rate than men, their efforts are less likely to be recognised and they are more likely to be excluded from tasks and roles that enhance their promotion prospects.

Unless attitudes change, this downside of working from home is likely to become more apparent for women.

Mark Wooden is Director of the HILDA Survey project which is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services. He also receives funding from the US National Institutes of Health which is supporting a research grant on the effects of COVID-19 and COVID-19 mitigation policies.

Esperanza Vera-Toscano is employed in HILDA Survey project which is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services. She also works on the project funded by the US National Institutes of Health on the effects of COVID-19 and COVID-19 mitigation policies.

Inga Lass does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. HILDA finds working from home boosts women’s job satisfaction more than men’s, and that has a downside – https://theconversation.com/hilda-finds-working-from-home-boosts-womens-job-satisfaction-more-than-mens-and-that-has-a-downside-195641

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Blazevich, Professor of Biomechanics, Edith Cowan University

If you’ve been watching the World Cup, you might have marvelled at the physical fitness and skill of these elite players.

How can they run and run and run for so long? What makes them so good at speedy changes of direction? Biomechanically, is there a certain body type that is perfect for football?

Of course, much of the brilliant play is down to natural talent combined with years of very hard training and practise. But there are certainly some physical features that help a lot when it comes to being able to play football at this level.

Read more:
VAR and peace? Why tech-assisted refereeing won’t do away with disputed decisions at the World Cup

Different features for different positions

There’s no one single perfect body type for this sport; much depends on what position you play.

A central defender, for example, might benefit from a bit of extra height so they can defend against aerial balls in the box.

Midfielders, on the other hand, head the ball less often but need a lot of agility and to run astonishing distances in the game – most will cover more than 10 kilometres, with sprints and direction changes common. That’s where having lighter body mass really helps, and that means not being too tall. When you are tall – even if you are skinny – you weigh more, so being very tall can be a disadvantage for these players.

And being shorter means that our centre of mass is lower, so we have more stability and better balance. That makes technical skills with the ball easier to perform and it makes swiftly changing direction easier too.

There is one fairly consistent physical feature across footballers, which seems to be similar across male and female players: an ability to run and run.

They need to have a big engine, so they are physiologically strong in terms of heart and lungs. In a running test, these players will show up with a very high VO₂ max (a measure of the maximum amount of oxygen your body can use while exercising).
They will also have a high lactate threshold, which means their bodies can cope with high intensity effort for long periods of time.

All this adds up to what we call good repeat sprint ability. That means they can run, then recover, then run, then recover, and so on and so on. Don’t forget, they do spend some time standing or walking, so it’s the repeated effort to go from low intensity to maximum intensity over and over that necessitates this big engine.

Lighter upper body, strong lower body

Football players in general are not stocky like, say, rugby players. But while the upper body tends to be fairly light (which saves on mass and helps with speed), they do generally have quite big, strong legs.

That’s because changing direction rapidly – and to accelerate and decelerate almost instantly – takes quite a lot of force. You need muscly legs to do that.

Having a large upper body, on the other hand, would be mostly downside with little upside. There’s no significant requirement for upper body strength in this sport, so if want to increase speed and endurance, you need to maintain a lighter upper body mass. They are not training to get really big in the upper body.

They also generally have very low body fat levels as they need a lighter body mass to run, jump and accelerate.

What about the goalkeeper?

One position that does benefit greatly from height is the goalkeeper. The Australian goalkeeper, Mark Schwarzer, used his 1.95 metres frame to great advantage. And most elite goalkeepers stand taller than 1.85 metres.

The job of the ‘keeper is to leap vertically and laterally. Having long legs can help the ‘keeper to jump higher and further because they can push off over a larger distance during the jump. And having long arms helps with reach to tip or catch the ball. So being tall can be a real advantage.

All in all, these players are well built to produce elite performances at the highest levels of the game. While years of hard training has surely contributed to their success, they might also thank their parents for the genes they received too.

Read more:
Why Maradona’s ‘Hand of God’ goal is priceless — and unforgettable

Anthony Blazevich does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. World Cup: what body type works best for football? A professor of biomechanics explains – https://theconversation.com/world-cup-what-body-type-works-best-for-football-a-professor-of-biomechanics-explains-195813

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Sydney

The Albanese government proposes to ditch the “Yes/No” case pamphlets that are ordinarily posted to voters before a referendum. Is this a good idea, and what, if anything, should replace it?

What changes are proposed?

Under the existing law, after a proposed constitutional amendment is passed by parliament, a majority of MPs who voted for it may prepare a written Yes case of up to 2,000 words. If any members voted against it in parliament, they can prepare the official No case.

Before the referendum, the electoral commissioner sends a pamphlet in the mail to every voter. This includes the Yes case and the No case (if one has been provided) as well as a copy of the proposed changes to be made to the Constitution. This is the only official information given to voters to help them decide how to vote in the referendum.

The Commonwealth government is currently prohibited from otherwise spending money on the presentation of arguments for or against a referendum proposal.

In its Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, the Albanese government intends to “disapply” the relevant section so it ceases to operate until the next general election. The effect would be that there would be no official Yes/No case distributed to voters for any referendum held in this term of parliament, and no legal restriction on government spending on the referendum campaign.

Read more:
Creating a constitutional Voice – the words that could change Australia

What is the point of the Yes/No case?

The Yes/No case pamphlet was first required by a law enacted in 1912. It was introduced due to a concern that the previous referendum had failed because the voters were inadequately informed.

Opposition Leader Alfred Deakin, who had opposed the previous referendum, was nonetheless supportive of introducing better public education on referendums. He argued:

It is our duty, when we ask the electors to vote for or against momentous proposals of this kind, to give them the best material we have in order that they may form an independent judgment.

The attorney-general of the day, Billy Hughes, had a rather naïve expectation of how the Yes/No case would be used. He said:

Honourable Members may put their case before the public, provided that it is put in an impersonal, reasonable, and judicial way. There is to be no imputation of motives. In short, the argument is to be one which appeals to the reason rather than to the emotions and party sentiments.

This is not how things have turned out. In fact, the Yes/No case, because it is prepared by political partisans, is often misleading and emotive, particularly on the No side.

The No case and the aviation referendum

A good example is the 1937 referendum on giving the Commonwealth parliament power to legislate on aviation. When the Constitution was first being written, the Wright brothers had not yet flown a plane. So there was nothing in it about making laws to govern aviation in Australia.

The consequence was that federal laws applied to flights in and out of Australia and some interstate flights, but not to planes flying within a state. This was inefficient and potentially dangerous, so a referendum was held to give the Commonwealth full power over aviation in 1937. Despite it logically being the type of thing that should be dealt with on a national basis, the referendum was lost.

The No case had argued the expansion of aviation would compete with and ruin the state railway systems. It would make railway workers unemployed and bankrupt country towns. The price of food would sky-rocket, because the cost of freight would be higher and the finances of every state government would be endangered.

These claims were highly exaggerated and had nothing to do with whether the Commonwealth or the states should regulate aviation. But it was enough to make some people worried and so vote No.

It is, of course, difficult to attribute referendum outcomes to the inflammatory and misleading content of the Yes/No cases, as most people don’t read them. But some will, and the official nature of the document will give its contents greater credence than they deserve.

Read more:
Changing the Australian Constitution is not easy. But we need to stop thinking it’s impossible

Referendum pamphlets in New South Wales

In contrast, in New South Wales the practice has been to have public servants, not politicians, write the pamphlet that is sent to voters prior to a referendum. The public servants are required to do so in a factually accurate and impartial manner. Before publishing the pamphlet, they send it to acknowledged experts for vetting to ensure it is accurate and a fair explanation of the issues.

The success rate of New South Wales referendums is much higher than that at the Commonwealth level. If you count state-wide referendums to amend the New South Wales Constitution where voters were given a binary Yes/No choice, then the success rate is 85%. This can be compared with the Commonwealth success rate of 18%. While other factors will also have been in play, providing voters with informative and accurate material rather than inflammatory and misleading material is likely to have helped at the state level.

What replaces the Yes/No case?

While the Yes/No case in its current form has not proved the reasonable and informative tool that was intended by Hughes, a question remains as to what should replace it. If there is no officially sanctioned information, then this just leaves open a free-for-all on social media with even more misleading material circulating. There surely needs to be at least one source of authoritative information to which people can turn.

The government has said it proposes to fund educational campaigns to promote voters’ understanding of referendums and the referendum proposal. Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has stated the bill will “enable funding of educational initiatives to counter misinformation”.

The difficulty facing the government will be working out how this can be done in a way that maintains public confidence and is not seen to be partisan in nature.

The intention behind this change is a worthy one. The Yes/No case has long been recognised as a failed experiment. But the successful execution of the government’s educative proposals will be difficult and need great care.

Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and been a consultant to Parliaments, Governments and inter-governmental bodies. She is a director of Constitution Education Fund Australia (CEFA) which engages in constitutional education initiatives. It is possible that CEFA or its materials might be used in any education campaign. Anne Twomey also has her own constitutional education YouTube channel, Constitutional Clarion.

– ref. The government will not send out Yes and No case pamphlets ahead of the Voice to Parliament referendum. Does this matter? – https://theconversation.com/the-government-will-not-send-out-yes-and-no-case-pamphlets-ahead-of-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum-does-this-matter-195806

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Burgin, Lecturer in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Swinburne University of Technology

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold today announced that the charges against Bruce Lehrmann, the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019, have been withdrawn.

An earlier jury had been dismissed resulting in a mistrial, after an academic research paper relating to sexual assault was found in the jury room. Jurors are forbidden from doing their own research, as each case must be decided only on the evidence presented in court. A retrial had been ordered by the court to begin in February.

Decisions to prosecute

There are two tests the DPP must consider in determining whether or not to prosecute a case.

First, based on the evidence, are there reasonable prospects of conviction? In the Lehrmann case, the DPP has determined – and maintains – there are reasonable prospects for a conviction for the charge of sexual intercourse without consent – an offence other states call rape.

If this first test is met, the DPP must then determine whether proceeding with prosecution is in the public interest. It is this second test the DPP referred to when announcing the decision not to proceed with the retrial.

This “public interest test” is complex, and there are countless factors to be considered in making a determination. It is, for example, certainly in the public interest to pursue sexual offences, given the prevalence of sexual violence in the community.

However, this cannot be the only basis on which the decision is made. The DPP specifically referred to a section of the ACT Prosecution Policy (which outlines these tests) that states consideration should be given to “the actual or potential harm occasioned to any person as a result of the alleged offence”. He continued that this required him to consider the harm that could be caused to a survivor in pursuing prosecution.

Speaking specifically about Brittany Higgins, he said he had received independent evidence from two medical professionals, which made it clear the “ongoing trauma associated with this prosecution presents a significant and unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant”.

The risk to Higgins’ life means prosecution is not in the public interest.

Courtroom trauma

This decision would not have been made lightly, and almost certainly, would have been made in consultation with Higgins. Her friend released a statement on her behalf calling the last few years “difficult and unrelenting”. Higgins is seeking mental health treatment in hospital.

Today’s decision brings into public view the effect on complainants of reporting and pursuing sexual violence cases. The justice system caused more harm to a person who was reporting a crime within their rights.

During the first trial, the defence consistently shifted focus away from the actions of the accused, onto those of Higgins – a typical tactic in rape trials. The prosecution, for its part, encouraged the jury to centre its attention on Lehrmann – on the inconsistencies in his own statements and whether he was reckless to the issue of consent.

This is not new. Decades of research confirms victim-survivors experience the justice system as retraumatising. This is, at least in part, because of the role rape myths play in criminal rape trials.

Rape myths refer to widely held, hard-to-change and incorrect views about rape, survivors, and those who commit the crime. They inform society’s response to sexual violence – including that of the criminal justice system.

Victim-survivors are asked about what they did to resist an assault, whether they flirted with the accused, drank alcohol, had previously consented to sex with the accused or another person, or whether they might have a “motive” to lie about rape.

This is exactly what law reform is focused on changing, including through the introduction of affirmative consent standards that require active communication of willingness to engage in a sexual act.

Read more:
NSW adopts affirmative consent in sexual assault laws. What does this mean?

But this questioning is designed to encourage the jury to draw on rape myths, including about the truthfulness of rape allegations, based on the premise that such allegations are easily made and difficult to defend.

In reality, the opposite is true – most people who experience rape never report to the police. And for those who do, convictions are rare.

In effect, these trial practices put the complainant on trial, and we certainly saw this happen to Higgins.

Trial by media

For Higgins, the experience extended far beyond the courtroom, to a “trial by media”.

Over the course of the trial, including multiple days of intrusive cross-examination about her every action in the days, weeks and months before and after the night in question, the media relentlessly reported on her every word. And, of course, photographers were on hand to capture a snap of her as she left each evening.

The media focus was on Higgins. Defence assertions likening Higgins to a “con artist”, calling her “unreliable”, and statements characterising her evidence as “lies” have been featured across news headlines. But statements by legal counsel are not evidence, nor are the questions put to any witness during a trial. Yet they were repeated in the media, often uncritically.

This type of reporting lends legitimacy to rape myths, particularly the notion that a rape trial is “her word against his”. This isn’t true in a case that started with a witness list of 58 names.

This is also hardly in line with the principles of due process. For Lehrmann, inappropriate media reporting, prompted by Lisa Wilkinson’s ill-considered Logies acceptance speech and equally ill-advised reporting of the speech in the days that followed, threatened his right to the presumption of innocence. This forced a delay of the trial to protect his rights.

For Higgins though, apparently no such rights apply. Instead, a criminal justice system that is not fit for purpose and a media storm more interested in the scandal, both bolstered by a community that readily consumed and regurgitated sexist victim-blaming narratives, saw the charges dropped.

Read more:
Why was the Brittany Higgins trial delayed, and what is ‘contempt of court’? A legal expert’s view on the Lisa Wilkinson saga

Impact on survivors

Ignoring sexual violence in the media isn’t the answer – change rarely comes out of darkness. But we do need to respect the dignity and privacy of victim-survivors.

The spectacle of the Lehrmann case doesn’t just affect those involved. The impacts will be felt far beyond.

For the one in five women and one in 20 men in Australia who experience sexual violence in their lifetime, this view into the criminal justice system and into the reporting of sexual violence has sent a clear message – in Australia, it’s the survivors on trial.

Read more:
Making change, making history, making noise: Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame at the National Press Club

Rachael Burgin receives funding from Family Safety Victoria. She is the CEO of Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy (RASARA).

– ref. Lehrmann trial discontinued: when prosecution isn’t in the public interest – https://theconversation.com/lehrmann-trial-discontinued-when-prosecution-isnt-in-the-public-interest-192495

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, University of Adelaide

Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles – Chantal Akerman’s 1975 hypnotic study of a mother performing domestic chores in microscopic detail – has just been crowned the “greatest film of all time” in Sight and Sound’s prestigious poll.

It is only the fourth film to have topped the list since polling began, and the first directed by a woman.

The full list of 100 films was published today, with the top ten:

1. Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal Akerman, 1975)
2. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
3. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)
4. Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu, 1953)
5. In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai, 2000)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
7. Beau Travail (Claire Denis, 1999)
8. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)
9. Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
10. Singin’ in the Rain (Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly, 1952)

If you are looking for a crash-course in film history, this is not a bad place to start.

How did we get here?

Once a decade since 1952, the British Film Institute’s magazine Sight and Sound has polled filmmakers, critics, curators and programmers from around the world, asking them to name their ten best films ever made.

In the film world, this is the list that counts.

It is collated by the industry itself, its rankings are a barometer of changing movie-going tastes, and the ten year wait between each announcement cements its reputation.

Polling began in June this year and everyone is sworn to secrecy. Mike Williams, the editor of Sight and Sound, has spoken about the magazine’s “credibility, authority, and an international reputation that’s second to none”.

The first winner in 1952 was Vittorio de Sica’s Bicycle Thieves (1948), the masterpiece of Italian neorealism. In the five polls from 1962 to 2002, the winner remained the same: Citizen Kane, Orson Welles’ 1941 debut.

Kane’s status as the “greatest” was consistently reinforced by directors and critics who admired Welles’ authorial single-mindedness, his chutzpah and his daring dismantling of Hollywood’s rules about storytelling and visual composition.

Citizen Kane was finally dethroned in 2012 by Vertigo, Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 twisted tale of obsession and betrayal.

Vertigo’s gradual rise up the list (it first appeared in 1982, and finished only 34 votes behind Kane in 2002) reflected cinema’s ongoing recognition of Hitchcock as an artist. As the critic Roger Ebert wrote at the time, “The king is dead. Long live the king.”

Read more:
The great movie scenes: Hitchcock’s Vertigo

As a film historian, it is fascinating to track the performances of some of cinema’s most beloved and esteemed films.

Casablanca (1942), The Wizard of Oz (1939), Gone With the Wind (1939) and It’s A Wonderful Life (1946) – for some, the apex of Hollywood’s expertise – have never made it anywhere near the top of the list.

The poll’s reluctance to embrace popular genres like musicals, comedies and westerns is reflected in the fact that only Singin’ in the Rain (1952), The General (1926) and The Searchers (1956) have ever appeared in the top ten.

But Hollywood has never dominated the list. To Sight and Sound’s credit, this is a global poll, with voices, opinions and perspectives canvassed from across the world cinema ecosystem. In 2012, a total of 2,045 different films received at least one mention.

The list is always eclectic and international. The Rules of the Game (1939, France) has appeared in every poll until this year, along with the likes of Tokyo Story (1953, Japan), L’Avventura (1960, Italy) and Man with a Movie Camera (1929, Russia).

So what does the new poll tell us?

In 2022, there are more contributors than ever before – 1,600 industry insiders, up from 846 back in 2012.

Apart from the new winner, this broader church has not shifted the results in any meaningful way. Vertigo, Citizen Kane and Tokyo Story are still ranked two, three and four.

But a generational shift is taking place. New critics have emerged over the past decade and this is reflected in their choices: the masterpieces by Wong Kar-Wai, Kubrick and Lynch have all moved up in the rankings.

The new poll has also skewed towards “newer” films for the first time. In 2012, there were no films on the list made in the preceding decade. This year’s list includes Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019), Moonlight (2016), Parasite (2019) and Get Out (2017), alongside other relatively new additions The Gleaners and I (2000), Spirited Away (2001) and Tropical Malady (2004).

Read more:
Get Out: why racism really is terrifying

What is even more exciting is a direct challenge to what might be seen as the film industry’s herd mentality.

For years, the same films have been reconfirmed as the only ones worth talking about. The 2022 poll smashes open this echo chamber, recognising not just Akerman, but also Claire Denis, whose majestic Beau Travail (1999) makes its first appearance at number seven and Agnès Varda’s Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962) at 14.

Read more:
Agnès Varda, a pioneering artist who saw the extraordinary in the ordinary

Francophone female directors, it seems, are currently at the vanguard of great cinema.

But what will happen in 2032? Will Jeanne Dielman stand the test of time? Is there a film that hasn’t been made yet that will make an appearance in the top ten? Unlikely, given that there is usually at least a 20-year lag between a film’s release and its appearance on the list.

With this year’s list, we learned it takes time for a film to enter the critical consciousness and to reveal its stylistic intricacies or narrative pleasures.

We have just been reminded that the classics will always appear on polls and lists because, well, they are classic. They display craft, precision, elegance and emotional depth. They resonate down the decades, and they are the films that many of us – from world-famous directors to armchair critics – turn to again and again.

In the meantime, go and watch Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles and see what all the fuss is about.

Ben McCann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The ‘greatest film of all time’: Chantal Akerman’s win shows a generational shift is taking place among critics and filmmakers – https://theconversation.com/the-greatest-film-of-all-time-chantal-akermans-win-shows-a-generational-shift-is-taking-place-among-critics-and-filmmakers-195437

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Divya Narain, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

In 2017, scientists described a new species of great apes – the Tapanuli orangutan. The species, found in the Batang Toru ecosystem of North Sumatara, Indonesia was listed as critically endangered soon after.

The population of the species has declined by 83% over the past 75 years, largely due to hunting and habitat loss. Just 800 Tapanuli orangutans remain – and their last known habitat is threatened by a slew of infrastructure projects.

Chief among them is the Chinese-funded Batang Toru hydropower dam, which threatens to fragment and submerge a large chunk of the orangutan’s habitat. The project is just one of a staggering 49 hydropower dams China is funding: mostly across Southeast Asia, but also in Africa and Latin America.

In new research, my colleagues and I show the substantial risk to biodiversity posed by the sheer number of Chinese-funded dams. And yet, environmental regulation of these projects has serious flaws.

Big dams, big risks

Hydropower is expected to be an important part of the global renewable energy transition. But the technology brings environmental risks. Dams disrupt the flow of rivers, altering species’ habitat. And dam reservoirs inundate and fragment habitats on land.

Traditionally, financing of hydropower projects in low-income countries was the preserve of Western-backed multilateral development banks. China has now emerged as the biggest international financier of hydropower under its overseas infrastructure investment program, the Belt and Road Initiative.

Yet little is known about the scale of China’s hydropower financing or the biodiversity risks it brings. Whether adequate safeguards are applied to the projects by Chinese and host country regulators is also poorly understood. Our research attempted to remedy this.

We found China is funding 49 hydropower dams in 18 countries including Myanmar, Laos and Pakistan.

The dams are likely to impede the flow of 14 free-flowing rivers, imperilling the species they harbour. The first dam on a free-flowing river is akin to the proverbial “first cut” of a road into an intact forest ecosystem, causing disproportionate harms to biodiversity.

We also found Chinese-funded dams overlap with the geographic ranges of 12 critically endangered freshwater fish species, including the iconic Mekong Giant Catfish and the world’s largest carp species, the Giant Barb. The dams exacerbate the threats to these species and may push them closer to extinction.

Almost 135 square kilometres of critical habitat on land is also likely to be inundated and fragmented by the dams and their reservoirs.

Read more:
The hydropower industry is talking the talk. But fine words won’t save our last wild rivers

Lax environmental rules

Despite the biodiversity risks, we found serious gaps in the environmental rules applied to Chinese-funded dams.

A previous analysis found six Chinese state-owned banks – which together contribute most financing for Belt and Road projects – had no safeguard standards to limit biodiversity damage.

Complementing this analysis, our investigation found Chinese regulators also did not require hydropower projects to mitigate environmental damage. Some regulator policies, however, contained non-binding guidelines.

A number of Chinese government policies defer to host country laws on environmental protection. But our investigation found in most countries where the dams are being built, regulation to limit environmental harms was absent or still developing.

This poor governance leaves species and ecosystems in these countries vulnerable to environmental damage from dams.

A spotlight on Sumatra

The Batang Toru dam aims to bolster North Sumatra’s energy supplies. Its proponents say the dam uses environmentally-friendly technology that requires only a small area to be flooded.

Two multilateral development banks, however, distanced themselves from the project after concerns were raised about potential impact on the Tapanuli orangutan. The Chinese state-owned Bank of China also withdrew its finance offer after international protests. Chinese financier SDIC Power Holdings then stepped in to fund it.

Habitat destruction has confined the few remaining Tapanuli orangutans to a fragmented 1,400 square kilometre tract of rainforest in North Sumatra. Scientists say the Batang Toru dam further threatens this habitat.

Constructing the dam requires digging a tunnel in an area where most Tapanuli orangutans live. Experts also say the project will permanently isolate sub-populations of the species, increasing the risk of extinction.

The case illustrates the potential destruction hydropower projects can cause in the absence of appropriate planning and safeguards.

Read more:
Orangutans: could ‘half-Earth’ conservation save the red ape?

Need for holistic planning

The sheer number of Chinese-funded dams presents significant biodiversity risks. It also presents an opportunity.

China is funding several hydropower projects in single river basins. This puts it in an advantageous position to carry out “basin-scale planning”.

This involves making decisions about dams not based solely on an individual project, but by considering it in the context of other projects within the basin, as well as in the broader context of communities and the environment.

This type of planning also means dams can be configured to have the least impact on critically endangered species, and other irreplaceable and vulnerable biodiversity elements.

Such “system scale” planning is a key recommendation of international initiatives such as the World Commission on Dams and the European Union’s Water Framework Directive.

It also involves determining whether a proposed dam is the best way to meet energy needs, or if alternatives – such as wind or solar – could do so with lower environmental risks.

In the case of the Batang Toru dam, a 2020 report by a leading international consulting firm found the dam would not “materially improve access to nor the regularity of power supply” in North Sumatra, which in fact had a power surplus.

Given the huge damage dams can cause to biodiversity, it is crucial that only those dams that are really needed get built – and any associated damage is minimised.

The many Chinese-funded dams on the horizon must undergo rigorous vetting if serious biodiversity damage is to be averted.

Read more:
Why conservation areas are not living up to their potential in Indonesia

Divya Narain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A China-backed dam in Indonesia threatens a rare great ape – and that’s just the tip of the iceberg – https://theconversation.com/a-china-backed-dam-in-indonesia-threatens-a-rare-great-ape-and-thats-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-192615

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The plan for a second trial of Bruce Lehrmann has been dropped after expert medical advice warned it posed a “significant and unacceptable risk” to Brittany Higgins’ life.

The ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, announced the decision in a statement at 10am Friday. He also condemned in the strongest terms the attacks Higgins has had to endure.

She is currently in hospital.

Higgins, a former Liberal staffer, alleged Lehrmann, then a fellow staffer, raped her in the office of then defence industry minister Linda Reynolds in 2019. The pair had returned to the parliament house office after a night out drinking. Lehrmann denied the allegation.

The latest development follows the abandonment of an earlier trial after it was found a juror had done their own research, against the explicit and repeated instructions of the judge. Another trial had been due to start early in the new year.

Drumgold said in his statement there were two considerations under ACT policy in deciding whether to continue a prosecution: whether there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction and, if so, if it were in the public interest to proceed.

In June he had “formed a clear view that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and this is a view that I still hold to date”, he said.

But under the public interest test he had to consider “the harm that could be occasioned to a party, particularly a complainant, from an ongoing prosecution”.

He had now received “compelling evidence from two independent medical experts that the ongoing trauma associated with this prosecution presents a significant and unacceptable risk to the life” of Higgins.

“The evidence makes it clear that this is not limited to the harm of giving evidence in a witness box, rather applies whether or not the complainant is required to enter a witness box during a retrial.

“Whilst the pursuit of justice is essential for both my office and for the community in general, the safety of a complainant in a sexual assault matter must be paramount,” Drumgold said.

“In light of the compelling independent medical opinion and balancing all factors, I have made the difficult decision that it is no longer in the public interest to pursue a prosecution at the risk of the complainant’s life.”

This had left him with no option but not to proceed with a retrial.

Drumgold also delivered an exceptionally strong condemnation of the treatment to which Higgins had been subjected.

“During the investigation and trial as a sexual assault complainant, Ms Higgins has faced a level of personal attack that I have not seen in over 20 years of doing this work.

“She has done so with bravery, grace and dignity and it is my hope that this will now stop and Ms Higgins will be allowed to heal.”

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Lehrmann retrial abandoned because of ‘a significant and unacceptable risk’ to Brittany Higgins’ life – https://theconversation.com/lehrmann-retrial-abandoned-because-of-a-significant-and-unacceptable-risk-to-brittany-higgins-life-195805

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Lowke, Adjunct Research Professor of Physics, University of South Australia

Everyone has seen lightning and marvelled at its power. But despite its frequency – about 8.6 million lightning strikes occur worldwide every day – why lightning proceeds in a series of steps from the thundercloud to the earth below has remained a mystery.

There are a few textbooks on lightning, but none have explained how these “zigzags” (called steps) form, and how lightning can travel over kilometres. My new research provides an explanation.

The intense electrical fields in thunderclouds excite electrons to have enough energy to create what are known as “singlet delta oxygen molecules”. These molecules and electrons build up to create a short, highly conducting step, which lights up intensely for a millionth of a second.

At the end of the step, there is a pause as the build-up happens again, followed by another bright, flashing leap. The process is repeated again and again.

An increase in extreme weather events means lightning protection is increasingly important. Knowing how a lightning strike is initiated means we can work out how to better protect buildings, aeroplanes and people. Also, while the use of environmentally friendly composite materials in aircraft is improving fuel efficiency, these materials increase the risk of lightning damage, so we need to look at additional protection.

What leads up to a lightning strike?

Lightning strikes happen when thunderclouds with an electric potential of millions of volts are connected to the earth. A current of thousands of amps flows between the ground and the sky, with a temperature of tens of thousands of degrees.

Photographs of lightning reveal a host of details not observed by the naked eye. Usually there are four or five faint “leaders” coming from the cloud. These are branched and zigzag on an irregular path towards the earth.

The first of these leaders to reach the earth initiates the lightning strike. The other leaders are then extinguished.

Fifty years ago, high-speed photography revealed still more complexity. The leaders progress downwards from the cloud in “steps” about 50 metres long. Each step becomes bright for a millionth of a second, but then there is almost complete darkness. After a further 50 millionths of a second another step forms, at the end of the preceding step, but the previous steps remain dark.

Why are there such steps? What is happening in the dark periods between steps? How can the steps be electrically connected to the cloud with no visible connection?

The answers to these questions lie in understanding what happens when an energetic electron hits an oxygen molecule. If the electron has enough energy, it excites the molecule into the singlet delta state. This is a “metastable” state, which means it is not perfectly stable – but it usually doesn’t fall into a lower energy state for 45 minutes or so.

Oxygen in this singlet delta state detaches electrons (required for electricity to flow) from negative oxygen ions. These ions are then replaced almost immediately by electrons (which carry a negative charge) again attaching to oxygen molecules. When more than 1% of the oxygen in the air is in the metastable state, the air can conduct electricity.

So the lightning steps occur as enough of the metastable states are created to detach a significant number of electrons. During the dark part of a step, the density of metastable states and electrons is increasing. After 50 millionths of a second, the step can conduct electricity – and the electrical potential at the tip of the step increases to approximately that of the cloud, and produces a further step.

The excited molecules created in previous steps form a column all the way to the cloud. The whole column is then electrically conducting, with no requirement of an electric field and little emission of light.

Protecting people and property

The understanding of lightning formation is important for the design of protection for buildings, aircraft and also people. While it is rare for lightning to hit people, buildings are hit many times – especially tall and isolated ones.

When lightning hits a tree, sap inside the tree boils and the resulting steam creates pressure, splitting open the trunk. Similarly, when lightning hits the corner of a building, water from rain that has seeped into the concrete boils. The pressure blasts off the whole corner of the building, creating the risk of deadly collapses.

A lightning rod invented by Benjamin Franklin in 1752 is basically a thick fencing wire attached to the top of a building and connected to the ground. It is designed to attract lightning and earth the electric charge. By directing the flow through the wire, it saves the building from being damaged.

These Franklin rods are required for tall buildings and churches today, but the uncertain factor is how many are needed on each structure.

Furthermore, hundreds of structures are not protected, including shelter sheds in parks. These structures are often made from highly conductive galvanized iron, which itself attracts lightning, and supported by wooden posts.

The new version of Standards Australia for lightning protection recommends such shelters be earthed.

Dr John Lowke was a member of the Standards Australia committee that recommended the change to lightning protection standards.

– ref. Why does lightning zigzag? At last, we have an answer to the mystery – https://theconversation.com/why-does-lightning-zigzag-at-last-we-have-an-answer-to-the-mystery-195549

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Moore, Professor, School of Engineering and Technology, CQUniversity Australia

The European Space Agency made history last week with the announcement of the first “parastronaut”, 41-year-old UK citizen John McFall.

He is the first candidate selected for the Parastronaut Feasibility project, described by ESA as a “serious, dedicated and honest attempt to clear the path to space for a professional astronaut with a physical disability”.

McFall, a former Paralympic sprinter, had his right leg amputated after a motorcycle accident at age 19.

Most of us are familiar with images of gruelling astronaut selection tests and training from movies such as The Right Stuff. ESA seeks to answer the practical question of what changes to training and equipment need to be made for a physically disabled person to travel to space.

How are astronauts selected?

NASA first selected astronauts, the Mercury Seven, in 1959. Recruitment was limited to male military test pilots less than 40 years old, in excellent physical and mental health, and less than 1.8m tall (the Mercury capsule was tiny).

Today, NASA uses a similar basic eligibility screening. Applicants must have 20/20 vision (corrective lenses and laser eye surgery are okay) with blood pressure under 140/90 when seated and a height between 1.49 and 1.93m (to fit available spacesuits).

However, this is the easy part. Candidates endure several rounds of interviews and testing, and if lucky enough to be selected will need to pass the long-duration flight astronaut physical. It’s a gruelling week-long test of physical abilities necessary for space, such as agility and hand-eye coordination, as well as tolerance of extreme pressure and inertial (rotating) environments.

This is followed by a two-year training period mastering complex space hardware and software, performing simulated EVAs (spacewalks) in Houston’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, and experiencing weightlessness during parabolic flight.

Read more:
Australia just flew its own ‘vomit comet’. It’s a big deal for zero-gravity space research

Although I have described the NASA process here, similar programs are used across space agencies. Determining what adaptations to training are required to allow participation by physically disabled candidates will be one outcome of the parastronaut project.

Astronaut diversity is improving

Culturally, astronaut selection criteria have slowly evolved since the first all-male, all-military cohorts. The first female (and civilian) in space, Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova, flew on the Vostok 6 capsule in 1963.

It was another 15 years before NASA selected female astronauts, and a further five before Sally Ride became the first US woman in space aboard the shuttle Challenger in 1983. The first NASA astronaut of colour, Guion “Guy” Bluford, flew in the same year.

The 2021 NASA astronaut class of ten candidates, Group 23, included four women and several candidates from culturally diverse backgrounds.

It would appear that diversity in astronaut selection has lagged behind society, and ESA has made a bold step with the parastronaut project.

Levelling the playing field

ESA has initially focused on candidates with a lower-limb disability. Astronauts primarily use their upper body to get around in weightlessness, and a lower-limb disability is unlikely to impair movement. In this respect, zero-g presents a level playing field.

Issues are likely to arise when operating existing space hardware. The parastronaut study aims to determine what modifications to launch vehicles, spacesuits and other space systems would be necessary to allow a physically disabled astronaut to live and work in space.

There is precedent for an astronaut with a progressively disabling condition flying in space. NASA astronaut Rich Clifford was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 1994 after noticing a lack of movement in his right arm when walking, shortly before his third scheduled shuttle flight.

NASA not only allowed him to launch aboard Atlantis in 1996 for his final mission, but scheduled Clifford for a six-hour EVA on the exterior of the Mir space station.

Although his experience was largely positive, Clifford did note he had difficulty donning his spacesuit due to limited motion of his right arm. The human-machine interface may present the biggest challenge for future parastronauts.

Space is still risky and extreme

In November 2021 we passed the milestone of 600 humans having gone to space. Compare that to the 674 million passengers who flew on US airlines in 2021 alone.

If we could travel back in time to when only 600 people had flown in aeroplanes, we would find the risk of flying considerably higher than today. This is where we are with spaceflight.

It remains a high-risk venture to an extreme environment with significant physical and mental challenges. We are still a long way from anyone being able to travel to space, although hopefully we won’t have to wait until billions of people have launched to reach a level of safety comparable to modern commercial aviation.

Our knowledge of the physical, mental and operational risks associated with spaceflight is still incomplete. Of the 600+ space travellers to date, only 70 have been female, and an understanding of gender difference in space health is only just beginning to emerge.

How would a physical disability affect an astronaut’s performance in space? We don’t know, but ESA is taking the first step in finding out. It would appear that space truly is the last frontier.

Steven Moore has received research funding from NASA and ESA.

– ref. The world finally has its first ‘parastronaut’. Can we expect anyone to be able to go to space one day? – https://theconversation.com/the-world-finally-has-its-first-parastronaut-can-we-expect-anyone-to-be-able-to-go-to-space-one-day-195566

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wilfred Yang Wang, Lecturer in Media & Communications Studies, The University of Melbourne

The recent Who Gets to Tell Australian Stories? report on diversity in Australian newsrooms revealed some grim, but unsurprising figures. The report found most television news and current affairs presenters on major Australian free-to-air networks are Anglo-Celtic. So too were most senior network news editors.

One part of this problem is a lack of representation of Asian people in Australian mainstream newsrooms.

Despite (or perhaps because of) this, ethnic media outlets have proved indispensable to Australia’s media landscape. For example, the first two years of the pandemic showed the crucial role ethnic media outlets can play keeping Australians informed in a crisis.

So what now? How can ethnic media be supported to continue to inform Australians, and how might mainstream media need to change to better serve these communities? Drawing on our research on Chinese and Sri Lankan communities in Australia, here are some possible paths ahead.

Read more:
How can we stop fake election news spreading in migrant communities?

Older migrants are online and looking for information

Our research focused on older people, who are often assumed to be not particularly active online. But that’s not the case.

Older Australians have embraced digital technologies and research has shown many older Asian migrants use digital media. This is certainly true among older members of Chinese and Sri Lankan communities we spoke with.

Our interviews with older Chinese and Sri Lankan migrants in Melbourne revealed nearly all had more than one digital device. Nearly all used social media to connect with friends and family in Australia and abroad.

Most didn’t get news and information from mainstream media outlets, with the exception of SBS’s in-language radio programs. But many didn’t know these programs also distribute news content on Facebook (in Sinhala and Chinese), WeChat (in Mandarin) and Telegram (in Cantonese). Our participants instead frequently accessed news from community Facebook groups, WhatsApp groups and WeChat news accounts.

During the early part of the pandemic, many actively sought news and health information about COVID through traditional and digital news platforms. But our participants reported it was ethnic community media that played a central role keeping these Australians informed. These included media outlets such as Today Media and YeeYi Australia on WeChat, and Sri Lankan online community news media outlets such as Pahana and Aus News Lanka on Facebook.

All our Sri Lankan interviewees spoke fluent English and used Facebook, but felt Australian mainstream media did not satisfy their news needs. Instead, they preferred media sources attuned to their cultural contexts, which often included narrative and storytelling forms of reportage.

The ABC and The Australian have started to offer news services in Chinese (ABC also has Indonesian and Pidgin). But they tend to distribute these daily news updates via Facebook and Twitter. None of our Chinese participants used these platforms. Both ABC and The Australian have WeChat accounts but they are not updated daily. Only SBS Mandarin uses WeChat to provide daily updates about news and current affairs.

A greater role

COVID serves as an example of the role ethnic media outlets can play in keeping Australians informed but it is far from the only challenge facing Australia.

Victoria’s recent flooding crisis, for example, saw culturally and linguistically diverse communities negatively impacted by the absence of good systems to communicate important information quickly.

In future, perhaps governments and other authorities could engage Chinese and Sri Lankan community and ethnic media organisations to produce and disseminate disaster materials in language. A lack of engagement with ethnic media risks fuelling distrust of Australian authorities and creates the conditions under which misinformation can flourish.

Government and disaster authorities could consider creating registers of locally-based ethnic language media outlets (both digital and non-digital). These outlets could be briefed and called upon to spread important information when disaster strikes.

Governments could also consider funding training for staff working in ethnic media. Training could cover issues such as ethics, journalism codes of conduct, Australian media law, and ways to collaborate with their colleagues working in mainstream media.

There’s a role to play for mainstream media too. These organisations and their journalists should consult closely with migrant cultural associations to enable culturally inclusive coverage and the distribution of content that’s relevant to these communities.

Finally, governments should have a systematic approach to collaborating with ethnic language media to provide accurate, timely and culturally and linguistically accessible content to diverse communities during major public incidents.

Read more:
Migrant communities keep our cemeteries alive as more Anglo-Australians turn to cremation

Wilfred Yang Wang is affiliated with Victorian Multicultural Commission, Knox Multicultural Advisory Committee and Centre for Holistic Health. This article is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

Shashini Gamage has done consultancy work at the Australia Awards.

– ref. Ethnic community media can play a key role in a crisis – but it needs our support – https://theconversation.com/ethnic-community-media-can-play-a-key-role-in-a-crisis-but-it-needs-our-support-195193

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The recent claim by Kim Jong Un that North Korea plans to develop the world’s most powerful nuclear force may well have been more bravado than credible threat. But that doesn’t mean it can be ignored.

The best guess is that North Korea now has sufficient fissile material to build 45 to 55 nuclear weapons, three decades after beginning its program. The warheads would mostly have yields of around 10 to 20 kilotons, similar to the 15 kiloton bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.

But North Korea has the capacity to make devices ten times bigger. Its missile delivery systems are also advancing in leaps and bounds. The technological advance is matched in rhetoric and increasingly reckless acts, including test-firing missiles over Japan in violation of all international norms, provoking terror and risking accidental war.

The question now is how best to bring the pariah nation into the orbit of arms control negotiations and international dialogue. However remote the chances of that, the alternative risks a regional nuclear arms race.

A history of failure

The current impasse can be traced back to 1991 and the end of the Cold War. As part of its efforts to create a viable arms control treaty with the Soviet Union, the United States removed all nuclear weapons from South Korea.

This seemed sensible at the time, especially since North Korea had pledged itself to the cornerstone Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1985. This commits member states to arms control and reduction, with independent observers to monitor compliance.

Read more:
It’s time to take Kim Jong Un and his nuclear threats seriously

The faith was misplaced. From 1993, North Korea went on to trick or fool every US president and most of the international community for the next 30 years, quitting the NPT in 2003 and detonating its first nuclear explosion in 2006.

This so upset the global balance of power that all members of the UN Security Council agreed that North Korea had to stop developing nuclear warheads and associated missile delivery systems. Nine rounds of sanctions since 2006 have attempted to enforce this, to no avail.

Former US president Donald Trump was the last to try, inviting Kim Jong Un to open the North Korean economy and even pledging to end the joint military exercises in the south that aggravated him so much. Kim promised to “denuclearise” and then did nothing.

Influence of Russia and China

By the end of this decade, North Korea could have 200 devices, en route to Kim Jong Un’s vision of becoming a nuclear superpower. This would still be a lot fewer than those stockpiled by the US and Russia, which possess 90% of all nuclear weapons. But it would put North Korea on or above current estimates for Israel (90), India (160) or Pakistan (165), and into the middle league with Britain (225), France (“under 300”) and China (350).

The ideal solution would be for North Korea to sign the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – but we need to realistic. None of the other existing nuclear powers are signatories, and we now live in an age of nuclear upgrades and expansion.

The war in Ukraine has changed everything, its main lesson seemingly being that weapons of mass destruction are still strategically useful. Indeed, the Ukrainians are paying a price for having given up their nuclear stockpile in 1994 after Russia promised not to threaten or use force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity or political independence.

Even if additional sanctions might work, both Russia and China have only recently vetoed an attempt to impose tighter sanctions on North Korea over its missile launches. To underline their position, they also recently conducted military exercises inside the South Korean air defence zone.

Read more:
North Korea’s nuclear program is funded by stolen cryptocurrency. Could it collapse now that FTX has?

A regional arms race

All this raises a critical question: should the existing, ineffective sanctions be dropped in an effort to calm relations with North Korea and find a way forward? After all, there are precedents for eventual acceptance that countries have joined the nuclear club.

The US relented and dropped sanctions against India and Pakistan in 1999, despite both having never accepted the NPT. Nor has Israel, which has never even faced sanctions.

But for such a strategy to work, North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel would need to become signatories to the NPT and its associated protocols. History suggests this isn’t a plausible option.

Three decades of non-compliance with international obligations by North Korea have not engendered trust or a willingness by surrounding countries to submit to a nuclear neighbour. More likely is a regional nuclear arms race, as happened when India got the bomb and Pakistan had to keep up, or when Israel triggered Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

South Korea, Japan and possibly even Taiwan are likely to follow suit, either asking to host US ballistic missiles or pursuing independent nuclear strategies – especially if they feel the US won’t defend them after the next presidential election.

None of this makes the world safer.

Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Kim Jong Un wants North Korea to be a nuclear superpower – the real risk is a regional arms race – https://theconversation.com/kim-jong-un-wants-north-korea-to-be-a-nuclear-superpower-the-real-risk-is-a-regional-arms-race-195726

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreea Lachsz, PhD Candidate, University of Technology Sydney

Content warning – this article discusses acts of violence, suicide, and deaths in custody.

Australia appeared before the United Nations Committee against Torture on November 15 and 16 2022. This UN body monitors compliance with the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which Australia voluntarily signed up in 1989.

One of Australia’s obligations under the convention is to prepare a report for the committee every four years, and appear before the committee. The committee considered the report prepared by Australia, as well as information provided by civil society organisations such as the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The committee’s approach was to engage in constructive dialogue with the Australian government.

At the end of last week, the committee published its concluding observations, which provide guidance to Australia on both preventing torture and ill-treatment, and strengthening accountability mechanisms.

It noted work still lies ahead for Australia, particularly in relation to the continued over-incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, deaths in custody and raising the age of criminal responsibility.

Read more:
Dragging its feet on torture prevention: Australia’s international shame

What constitutes torture?

Under the convention, torture is defined as:

any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for […] obtaining […] information or a confession, punishing […] or intimidating or coercing […] or for any reason based on discrimination […] where the pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.

Torture is much broader than those practices which often spring to mind, such as testimonials of waterboarding that have come out of Guantanamo Bay.

Importantly, while the committee does consider torture, it also considers cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, also prohibited under the convention.

First Nations deaths in custody

The committee noted the increase in deaths in custody, linked to increasing incarceration rates. It was particularly concerned that Australia should address the over-incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Australian delegation itself acknowledged “transformational change is required to reverse the trend” of ever-increasing incarceration rates.

Causes of death included “use of force, lack of health care and suicide”. The committee recommended all deaths in custody be “promptly, effectively and impartially investigated by an independent entity”. It also suggested reviews of current prison healthcare and prevention strategies for suicide and self-harm.

Improving conditions and treatment in places of detention

Australia appeared before the committee in the same week the Four Corners report Locking Up Kids was released. The report, examining the treatment of children in youth prisons, received national attention.

The UN committee was concerned about the use of solitary confinement, and reports children “are frequently subjected to verbal abuse and racist remarks, [and] restrained in ways that are potentially dangerous”. It called for prompt investigation of “all cases of abuse and ill-treatment of children in detention” and adequate sanctions for perpetrators.

The committee concluded Australia should raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from ten years old, something First Nations groups such as Change the Record have been campaigning on for years.

It also emphasised the need to alleviate the overcrowding of detention facilities, and said keeping someone in pre-trial detention (prior to them being found guilty of an offence) should only be used “in exceptional circumstances and for limited periods”.

Read more:
Locking up kids has serious mental health impacts and contributes to further reoffending

Further recommendations

The committee made detailed recommendations about current practices in Australia, including:

• medical services should be improved, as they are inadequate in many places. It referred to reports that prisons “lack the appropriate capacity, resources and infrastructure to manage serious mental health conditions”

• the use of spit hoods “in all circumstances across all jurisdictions” must end

• solitary confinement must be used “only in exceptional cases as a last resort for as short a time as possible,” and never for children

• strip searches must not be performed routinely and must be conducted “in a manner that respects […] dignity”

• restraints must be “used only as a last resort” to prevent harm to the individual or others. Use of force (including restraints) should not be used as a “means of coercion or to discipline children”

• tasers must be used “exclusively in extreme and limited situations”, “where there is a real and immediate threat to life or risk of serious injury”.

Preventing torture and ill-treatment

The committee expressed concerns with the delay in establishing and funding the Australian National Preventive Mechanism – bodies that visit places of detention. It noted the upcoming, extended deadline to meet this obligation under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, on January 20 2023.

The committee said it “deeply regrets” the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture had to suspend its Australia visit due to “insufficient cooperation” from Australia in providing access to sites and other means of cooperation.

The subcommittee has since invited Australia “to provide all necessary assurances to the Subcommittee in order for it to be able to resume its visit as soon as possible”.

With the committee’s concluding observations, Australia has been provided expert guidance on how to strengthen its compliance with the convention against torture. The road map has been drawn. All that’s left now is to follow it.

Read more:
Why has a UN torture prevention subcommittee suspended its visit to Australia?

Andreea Lachsz is currently contracted to the ACT government as the ACT National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) Coordination Director. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of ACT government, ACT NPM or any extant policy.

– ref. The UN committee against torture has found Australia still has work to do – https://theconversation.com/the-un-committee-against-torture-has-found-australia-still-has-work-to-do-195420

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben White, Professor of End-of-Life Law and Regulation, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology

Voluntary assisted dying will soon be an option for the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory, now the Senate has just passed a landmark bill.

The passing of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 removes the key legal barrier for the ACT and NT to introduce their own voluntary assisted dying legislation, should they wish to do so.

This could see the territories join all six Australian states, which already have voluntary assisted dying legislation.

After extensive consultation, the ACT will introduce its voluntary assisted dying legislation, with debate expected in late 2023 or early 2024. The NT government has stated it has no plans to follow suit, at least during this parliamentary term.

Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying will soon be legal in all states. Here’s what’s just happened in NSW and what it means for you

The territories once led reform

Although the territories are now the only Australian jurisdictions without voluntary assisted dying laws, they once led reform in this area.

The ACT was the first Australian jurisdiction to attempt to legalise assisted dying, although its 1993 Voluntary and Natural Death Bill failed to pass.

Shortly after, in 1995, the NT parliament passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act – the first operational voluntary assisted dying law, not only in Australia, but in the world.

However, it was the passing of this law that prompted the Commonwealth to remove the territories’ power to legislate in this field.

In 1997, the NT’s act was overturned by the Commonwealth parliament through the Euthanasia Laws Act, introduced by then Liberal backbencher Kevin Andrews. This act also aimed to prevent the territories passing such laws in the future.

The Commonwealth was only able to do this for the territories – not the states – because the Constitution gives the Commonwealth unlimited power to make laws “for the government of any territory”.

Nine previous bills aiming to restore territory rights on this issue have been introduced into the Commonwealth parliament, but all had failed, until now.

The ACT and NT can learn from the states

If the ACT and NT choose to legalise voluntary assisted dying, they must consider the evidence and data from states where voluntary assisted dying is operational. There is also an opportunity to select the best aspects from each state law.

For instance, for all states except Queensland, for a person to access voluntary assisted dying, they must be expected to die within six months (within 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions).

Given challenges with delays in getting through the system, the 12-month period adopted by Queensland, or not imposing a specific time limit until death, may allow more time for terminally ill people to navigate access.

Read more:
Victoria’s voluntary assisted dying scheme is challenging and complicated. Some people die while they wait

Similarly, all states require a person to live in the state for 12 months before requesting assistance to die. Now voluntary assisted dying is lawful throughout most of Australia, there is little need for this requirement.

The territories may choose to impose minimum legal obligations for how health-care and aged care facilities who do not participate in voluntary assisted dying handle such requests. This is the case in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales.

The territories also may wish to allow eligible people to choose how the medication is administered – they can take it themselves or a health professional can administer it. This choice is permitted in NSW, whereas other states make self-administration the default method.

Read more:
What happens if you want access to voluntary assisted dying but your nursing home won’t let you?

What now for the rest of Australia?

Of the six states with voluntary assisted dying laws, those in Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania are already operational.

Queensland’s laws will start on January 1 2023, with SA following on January 31. NSW, the final state to pass its laws, will start on November 28.

Should the territories propose their own legislation, we’d anticipate wide consultation and debate.

With territories now permitted to decide this matter for themselves, there is a real prospect for them to have access to voluntary assisted dying in the foreseeable future.

Katherine Waller, Project Coordinator, Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, coauthored this article.

Ben White receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, he (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. He (with Lindy Willmott) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Ben White is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian Government.

Katrine Del Villar has been involved in designing the legislatively-mandated training provided by the Western Australian and Queensland Governments for health practitioners involved in voluntary assisted dying.

Lindy Willmott receives or has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and Commonwealth and State Governments for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, she (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland Governments to design and provide the legislatively-mandated training for doctors involved in voluntary assisted dying in those States. She (with Ben White) has also developed a model Bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Lindy Willmott has also been appointed to the Queensland Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board. She is a former Board member of Palliative Care Australia.

– ref. Territories free to make their own voluntary assisted dying laws, in landmark decision. Here’s what happens next – https://theconversation.com/territories-free-to-make-their-own-voluntary-assisted-dying-laws-in-landmark-decision-heres-what-happens-next-195291

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Loughran, Director Radiation Research and Advice (ARPANSA), and Adjunct Associate Professor (UOW), University of Wollongong

As summer approaches, we need to start remembering to slip on sun-protective clothing, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat, seek shade where possible, and slide on sunglasses.

When it comes to sunscreen, we all know we need to wear it to protect against the harmful effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which can cause skin cancer.

But what about the sun protection factor, known as the SPF rating, we see on our sunscreen bottles? It indicates the level of protection – but is it always what it says it is, and how is it actually tested?

Risking human health for SPF testing

While there have been some cases of sunscreens not matching up to their SPF claims, this is the exception and not the norm.

In Australia, we can be comfortable knowing these products are tightly regulated to ensure they are safe and meet their claimed SPF rating, according to current SPF testing methods.

However, problems arise when it comes to how sunscreens are tested for their SPF rating. Most people would not be aware that the SPF value on their sunscreen bottles is determined by testing on humans.

Ultimately, this means we are risking people’s health to test how effective our sunscreens are – and we urgently need to change this.

How is sunscreen SPF tested?

Once a sunscreen formulation has been developed by a manufacturer it needs to go through testing to ensure it only contains approved ingredients, and ultimately, that it does what it says it does.

All sunscreen products available in Australia are tested according to the Australian Standard to determine the SPF. This is great and provides assurance of safety and quality for the consumer – but the problem is with how this testing is done.

Currently, testing sunscreens on humans is the approved international standard to rate the UV protection level of a sunscreen. This testing involves volunteers wearing strictly defined amounts of sunscreen and being exposed to artificial solar UV radiation.

Performance is measured by determining the time it takes for erythema or redness to occur. This is, basically, sunburn; based on this, an SPF rating is assigned.

Why is human testing of SPF a problem?

If sunscreens only contain approved ingredients we know are safe, is it really a problem they are tested on humans?

Sadly, yes. Human testing involves exposing people to harmful UV radiation, which we know can cause skin and eye damage, as well as being the leading cause of skin cancer. This alone is unethical and unjustifiable.

There are also other issues associated with testing sunscreen on humans. For example, the use of erythema to determine sunscreen effectiveness is highly subjective, and may differ from one person to another, even for those with the same skin type. This makes the reliability of such testing methods questionable.

Read more:
Human skin stood up better to the sun before there were sunscreens and parasols – an anthropologist explains why

Further, testing is only done on a small number of people (a minimum of ten people is required in Australia). This is great for exposing as few people as possible to harmful UV radiation to determine a product’s SPF rating – but not so great when it comes to inclusiveness.

Testing such a small number of people is not representative. It does not include all skin types and leads to real challenges in achieving reproducible results across different laboratories testing the same product.

The testing itself is also very expensive. This adds to the already high cost of buying sunscreens, and potentially limits manufacturers from developing new and better products.

These, along with many other issues, highlight the urgency for non-human (in vitro) testing methods of a sunscreen’s effectiveness to be developed.

Human-free SPF testing technology is in development

While efforts have been made to develop non-human testing methods, there remain several challenges. These include the materials used to simulate human skin (also known as substrates), difficulties in applying the sunscreen to these substrates, reproducibility of results, and ensuring that results are the same as what we see with human testing.

However, scientists at RMIT University, with support from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the Cancer Council Victoria, are working on a solution to this problem.

So far, they have developed a prototype sensor that changes colour when exposed to UV radiation. This sensor could be customised for human-free sunscreen testing, for example.

Reliable in vitro testing methods will mean in the future, sunscreen manufacturers would be able to quickly make and test new and better sunscreens, without being limited by the time and cost constraints involved with human testing.

So the next time you buy a bottle of sunscreen, look to purchase the highest-rated sunscreen of SPF 50+ – and know that work is underway on getting that rating classified in a more ethical way.

Read more:
Are bananas really ‘radioactive’? An expert clears up common misunderstandings about radiation

Sarah Loughran receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC). She is the Director of Radiation Research and Advice at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). She is is also currently a member of the Scientific Expert Group at the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

Sylvia Urban receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC). She is a Professor in Chemistry and together with other colleagues in the School of Science, RMIT University, she is funded by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) on this project. She is also a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (FRACI), a member of the American Society of Chemistry (ACS) and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA).

– ref. There’s a serious ethical problem with some sunscreen testing methods – and you’re probably not aware of it – https://theconversation.com/theres-a-serious-ethical-problem-with-some-sunscreen-testing-methods-and-youre-probably-not-aware-of-it-195359

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Arrow, Professor of History, Macquarie University

Amid the scale and sweep of the list of decisions made by the Whitlam government in their first week in office, most people remember the big changes: freeing all draft resisters from prison, or official recognition of Communist China.

The removal of the sales tax on the contraceptive pill, and adding it to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which came into effect on December 9 1972, is easily overlooked. Yet this reform was both symbolic and materially important. It signalled to Australian women that their new government would be much more responsive to their demands for reproductive rights and freedoms, and ushered in a wave of feminist reforms under the Whitlam government.

The popularity of the pill

The introduction of the contraceptive pill in January 1961 had brought the topic of contraception into the open in Australia. It was hailed as a reliable and convenient way for married couples to plan their families.

The pill also made an important contribution to the changing sexual climate of the late 1960s. By removing the fear of pregnancy, the pill helped to change women’s attitude towards sex. Concerns about side-effects, cost and availability deterred some women from taking it, but by the early 1970s, one in every four Australian women had a prescription.

Read more:
‘The relation between politics and culture is clear and real’: how Gough Whitlam centred artists in his 1972 campaign

However, many doctors refused to prescribe the pill to single women, and it remained out of reach to many working class women due to its cost. At the time, Australia had banned the advertising of contraceptives, and the sales taxes and tariffs applied to contraceptives added to their expense. As the Women’s Electoral Lobby liked to point out, the 27% sales tax on the pill was the same as that applied to mink coats.

Growing calls for reproductive rights

Given many women’s difficulties obtaining the pill, it is unsurprising that access to abortion became a significant political issue in the 1960s. The Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA) was formed in 1967, and by 1971 it had branches across Australia.

The laws criminalising abortion were state-based, and these laws were liberalised in Victoria in 1969 and NSW in 1971. This liberalisation did not grant women the “right” to abortion, but clarified the conditions under which a doctor could perform an abortion lawfully.

Under the liberalised law, a doctor could perform an abortion legally when they believed that it was “necessary to preserve a woman from serious danger to her life or to her physical or mental health”.

These reforms were focused on doctors’ rights, rather than women’s. But at the same time, the women’s liberation movement was demanding bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom for women. They wanted abortion on request, free birth control, and free childcare, arguing that women could only fully participate in society as equal citizens if they had control over their fertility. Contraception was a fundamental feminist issue.

Whitlam, WEL and reproductive rights

As part of his reshaping of the Labor party to make it electable and modern, Whitlam extended the ALP’s language of equal opportunity beyond class to encompass migrants, women and Indigenous Australians.

While Labor’s 1972 election platform only addressed women’s specific needs in relation to childcare, Whitlam was a vocal supporter of women’s access to affordable contraception and abortion, as was his wife, Margaret.

Yet it was the Women’s Electoral Lobby that was perhaps most crucial in reshaping Labor policy on women’s issues. Formed in March 1972 by abortion law reform campaigner Beatrice Faust, WEL wanted to place women’s concerns on the political agenda by surveying all candidates in the 1972 election on issues women believed were important. One-third of those questions were on contraception and sex education.

Apart from the candidate survey, which generated huge publicity in the lead up to the 1972 election, WEL also engaged in lobbying, and made a submission to a 1972 tariff inquiry calling for a reduction in tariffs on contraceptives. As Marian Sawer notes in her history of WEL, this put family planning issues on the ALP’s agenda. Within a week of WEL’s submission, the shadow health minister, Bill Hayden, said a Labor government would remove the sales tax on contraceptives and support the development of a network of family planning clinics.

This early action made the contraceptive pill cheaper; the Whitlam government’s subsequent actions made contraception more widely available. The government made numerous grants to family planning organisations, and between 1973 and 1974, around 100 family planning clinics opened throughout Australia.

These clinics were important for several reasons: they took away some of the stigma of having to approach your doctor for a prescription for the pill, especially for young single women, and the location of clinics in working class areas helped increase uptake of the pill among working class women.

This early decision on the pill was the first of the Whitlam government’s reforms on reproductive rights. The government made an unsuccessful attempt to reform the law on abortion in the ACT. However, while it failed to change the law, it did create the Royal Commission on Human Relationships, a far-reaching inquiry into sexuality, gender and family life. In the words of Elizabeth Reid, the Whitlam government’s advisor to women’s affairs (the first position of that kind in the world), the commission helped foster a “revolutionary consciousness” that she saw as vital to driving structural and cultural change.

It inquired into why women had abortions and planned their families, recommending new laws and practices to respond to changing times. The government also funded women’s refuges and women’s health centres, which helped share new knowledge about contraception. It expanded the provision of childcare, and, through Reid, started the long, slow process of making Australian governments more responsive to women’s needs. It is an ongoing journey.

In his book The Whitlam Government, Whitlam remarked that

the many and diverse achievements of the Government did much to correct an alarming history within the Labor Party of ignorance and inactivity on women’s issues.

His government recognised women as independent political subjects with roles to play beyond motherhood. It also recognised the central principle of second wave feminism: namely, that women needed bodily autonomy and control over their fertility before they could participate in society on their own terms.

Read more:
Damned Whores and God’s Police is still relevant to Australia 40 years on – more’s the pity

The decision was also an important signal to the women’s movement: an assurance that they took women’s concerns seriously, and that the rights of women were important to the Labor party as they built an expanded coalition of voters.

The removal of sales tax on the pill was fitting recognition of women’s new political engagement, and the beginning of a productive relationship between the government and the women’s movement.

On the 50th anniversary of this symbolic and important decision, it’s worth remembering what governments and activists can achieve when they work together to improve the lives of Australian women.

Michelle Arrow receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She has worked as a campaign volunteer for the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Fifty years ago, the new Whitlam government removed the luxury sales tax on the pill. It changed Australian women’s lives – https://theconversation.com/fifty-years-ago-the-new-whitlam-government-removed-the-luxury-sales-tax-on-the-pill-it-changed-australian-womens-lives-194718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Byrne, Honorary Fellow, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne

On December 2 1972, after 23 years in opposition, Gough Whitlam led the Labor party back to government. What followed was three tumultuous years of crisis and transformation, after which Australia would never be the same again.

In our own era, when many have lost faith in the ability of the parliamentary system to deliver transformative reform, there is much the modern ALP can learn from Whitlam’s example.

But the simple nostalgia-driven narratives of that time often elide the serious mistakes Whitlam made, and the dangers inherent in seeking fundamental change.

Whitlam’s ambitious program

By the time Whitlam was elected as party leader in 1967, Australia had transformed beyond recognition in the almost two decades since Labor had been in power.

Whitlam’s drive to modernise the party had earned him no small number of enemies within Labor’s ranks, but his endeavours reflected the reality that if the party did not change, it would be consigned to irrelevancy. It needed to demonstrate its “contemporary relevance”. Condemning those in the Victorian party who were determined to cling to the certainties of the past, Whitlam delivered one of his most cutting jibes: “Certainly, the impotent are pure”.

Whitlam drew on a network of intellectuals and policy heavyweights to devise a far-reaching vision of Australia’s future, and a concrete plan to realise it. This was the famed “Program”, a promise of new opportunities and modernisation, that was the basis of Whitlam’s electoral appeal.

The Program was a compelling vision of the type of country Australia could become if it embraced the possibilities of the future. It expanded Labor’s electoral appeal beyond its traditional base to the rapidly expanding ranks of professional and white-collar workers. In his famed 1972 campaign speech, Whitlam posited that the poll would be a choice between “the habits and fears of the past, and the demands and opportunities of the future”.

Read more:
Jenny Hocking: why my battle for access to the ‘Palace letters’ should matter to all Australians

After the election, Whitlam wasted no time implementing the Program. He and his deputy, Lance Barnard, were sworn into a multitude of ministries (none secretly) until the full ministry could be appointed. This “duumvirate” sprung into action, ending conscription, removing Australian troops from Vietnam, and diplomatically recognising China.

The whirlwind of change had just begun. In the years that followed, university education was made free. Outer suburbs were provided with sewage systems. The remaining vestiges of the White Australia policy were abolished. No-fault divorce was introduced and the government supported two claims of equal pay for women. The Racial Discrimination Act was passed. The prime minister poured sand through Vincent Lingiari’s hand.

Whitlam’s downfall

Whitlam was determined to drag Australia into the future. But he was ill-prepared to deal with the seismic economic changes that were to come. Post-war politics was shaped by the elongated boom that delivered consistent growth and full employment. When the boom became bust in 1973/4 – an international phenomenon – Whitlam’s program came under serious threat. It was premised on the assumption of continuing growth. There was no Plan B.

Whitlam’s new deputy and treasurer Jim Cairns was steeped in personal controversy after a high-profile affair with his secretary, and was not politically equipped to grapple with the realities of the new era of “stagflation”: low growth, high inflation, and high unemployment.

The government pursued quixotic schemes to fund major investment projects, which led to the loan affair scandal, where attempts had been made to borrow money from international lenders, subverting usual borrowing practices and in contravention of the Australian Constitution.

The Whitlam government was losing control. This was made worse by the Coalition’s intransigent blocking of its agenda in the Senate, and the manoeuvrings that led to the dismissal in November 1975. In the December election that year, Whitlam’s Labor was categorically rejected.

Whitlam left a difficult legacy for Labor. His government’s reforms fundamentally transformed Australia for the better, but at a high cost for the party. Subsequent Labor administrations have had to question how best to balance ambition and pragmatism.

Lessons for the current Labor government

The Albanese Labor government is no different.

Whitlam floundered due to presumptions the economic framework would continue to function much as it had over the preceding decades. Once the boom was disrupted, so was Whitlam’s strategy for delivering opportunity.

The current economic shocks mean Albanese has had to confront from the outset difficult questions of how to ameliorate social inequality within the frameworks of acceptable fiscal orthodoxy.

In this difficult economic environment, the current government has managed to successfully negotiate substantive bills through the parliament to satisfy electoral pledges. But it is notable that much of what it has achieved, such as climate reduction legislation, has addressed inaction inherited from the previous government.

What Albanese’s Labor lacks is a coherent and compelling vision of the future it wants to use government to create.

And this is the danger the party faces. In a country where a quarter of the population admits to having to skip meals due to cost of living pressures, it is clear greater change than is on the agenda is required to once more capture the ethos of opportunity and equality that underpinned the Whitlam agenda.

It is quite shocking that so much of what Whitlam said, and strove to achieve, remains relevant today – 50 years on. Albanese’s Labor has so far confronted the effects of inaction it has inherited, but what is its grand vision? What is its belief in the type of Australia we can become? How will it use the power of government to actively create a new society?

A society where at the very basic level, amid such national wealth, nobody should be skipping meals to make it through the week.

While Labor has learned important lessons from the Whitlam years on competent administration, it too can learn about the significance of vision. The necessity of a program for change that brings distinct policies together into a unified conceptualisation of the politically possible that is able to regenerate a sense of enthusiasm and hope for the country’s future.

Whether this will be a government that grasps the possibilities of the future, and takes the ambitious action required to bring it into being, remains to be seen.

Liam Byrne is a member of the Australian Labor Party. Liam works as the Historian of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, but writes in a personal capacity.

– ref. 50 years ago today, Gough Whitlam was elected. There are some lessons for Albanese in what came next – https://theconversation.com/50-years-ago-today-gough-whitlam-was-elected-there-are-some-lessons-for-albanese-in-what-came-next-195649

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lidia Morawska, Professor, Science and Engineering Faculty; Director, International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health (WHO CC for Air Quality and Health); Director – Australia, Australia – China Centre for Air Quality Science and Management (ACC-AQSM), Queensland University of Technology

At the end of the third year of the pandemic, we are no longer surprised to hear we’re in a new wave of infection. It’s fuelled by new sub-variants of the virus that may evade immunity from both vaccination and previous infections.

Authorities recommend control measures, but they are “voluntary”. They include wearing a mask, vaccination, testing if you have symptoms and staying home if you test positive, and ventilation. Ventilation is often the last measure listed – as if it’s an afterthought.

While vaccines are highly effective in reducing the risk of death and serious illness, they are generally not effective in preventing transmission. Wearing a mask reduces the risk of both spreading and acquiring an infection but only when worn properly.

The best way to reduce the risk of transmission is to reduce the concentration of airborne virus that is available to be inhaled and can therefore cause infection.

Adequate ventilation of air in indoor spaces is the key to achieving this goal and should be at the top of the list of control measures. Ventilation reduces the risks for everyone, regardless of other individual actions.

Read more:
Australia must get serious about airborne infection transmission. Here’s what we need to do

Virus gets into the air we breathe

Let’s imagine there’s an infected person in the room we’re sitting in. Imagine we can see the cloud of air they exhale, as if it were laced with a coloured marker, for example, pink.

Imagine how it spreads across the room, eventually reaching and engulfing us. We inhale the “pink” air. If the person speaks or sings, the “pink” of the cloud is much more intense: the concentration of emissions is much higher.

Now imagine that in that cloud we also see some tiny dark green beads: lots of them. These are viruses and bacteria that are emitted by the infected person. They reach us and we inhale them.

Now let’s imagine we inhale enough of the “green beads”, and we are infected with COVID. Or influenza. Or a cold virus.

We can increase ventilation, either by opening the window, or by activating the mechanical ventilation system – basically using any means to get the contaminated air out of the room.

We will soon see that the “pink” of the cloud emitted by our roommate fades or even disappears. Ventilation efficiently removes emissions from the room, and we no longer inhale them.

How can we ensure good ventilation?

We need sufficient and effective ventilation in our buildings. Sufficient means enough of it, and effective means it’s everywhere within the space, so air doesn’t flow from person to person, transmitting viruses or bacteria between people.

Each building is different, and flexible ventilation systems – to ensure sufficient and effective ventilation – will depend on the building’s purpose.

To be effective, ventilation airflow rates must be controlled by the number of occupants in the space and their activity; the technologies to achieve this exist and are already in use.

Many buildings already have good ventilation, as assessed by monitors of air flows and carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the building’s heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC) systems.

But there are even more buildings where ventilation is inadequate and no one measures it.

Ventilation isn’t often measured because, in the absence of legislation mandating ventilation requirements and indoor air quality, no one is responsible for it.

Although the situation varies between different government portfolios and different states, in general, very little has been done to assess or improve ventilation.

Read more:
Someone in my house has COVID. How likely am I to catch it?

What are the costs of poor ventilation?

Viral respiratory infections have long been a major cause of illness and death in Australia. In just one year (2017), influenza and pneumonia accounted for 4,269 deaths. They were the ninth leading cause of death in 2017, moving from eleventh place in 2016.

The economic burden from all lower respiratory infections in Australia was greater than A$1.6 billion in 2018-19.

If only half these infections could be prevented by better ventilation removing the viruses from the air and thus limiting the spread, tens of thousands of people would remain healthy, and millions of dollars saved in Australia every year.

Rather than asking whether we can afford it, we need to ask whether we can afford the impact and cost of infections if we don’t implement effective ventilation in our buildings.

But how much would it actually cost to improve ventilation?

The cost to society of prevention through better designed buildings and gradual improvement of ventilation in existing buildings is much lower than the cost of infections. According to some estimates, this would amount to only 1% of initial construction costs.

But better building designs and improvements won’t be done voluntarily because the money for them doesn’t come out of the same pocket as the money to cover the health-care costs for infected people, or other costs, such as lost productivity or absenteeism due to illness.

As we argued previously in The Conversation, we need a national regulatory group for clean indoor air. Establishing such a group will require cooperation across various areas of government, with the goal of explicitly including protection against indoor air hazards in relevant Australian legislation.

However, the complexity of this public health problem seems to scare the authorities, which prefer to pretend it’s a minor issue.

Clearly, we have a long way to go to change this mindset. But it all starts with raising the awareness of each individual, then legislating indoor air quality standards to remove the “green beads” from the air that end up in our lungs.

Read more:
Four tips to avoid your office Christmas party turning into a superspreader event

Lidia Morawska receives funding from the NHMRC and ARC. She is Vice-Chancellor Fellow, Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), University of Surrey, UK.

Guy B. Marks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ventilation reduces the risk of COVID. So why are we still ignoring it? – https://theconversation.com/ventilation-reduces-the-risk-of-covid-so-why-are-we-still-ignoring-it-194820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deanna Kemp, Professor and Director, Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, The University of Queensland

Vast quantities of minerals are needed to accelerate the transition to a clean energy future. Minerals and metals are essential for wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries for electric vehicles. But Indigenous peoples have raised concerns about more mining on their lands and territories.

A new study led by authors John Owen and Deanna Kemp, published today, supports First Nations peoples’ concerns. We identified 5,097 mining projects involving about 30 minerals needed in the energy transition. Some 54% are located on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands.

These lands are valuable ecologically and culturally. Their soils, and land cover such as forests, store carbon which helps to regulate the planet’s climate. Typically, the lands are also intrinsic to Indigenous peoples’ identity and way of life.

Energy transition minerals are essential to tackling climate change. But First Nations people must have a genuine say in where and how they’re extracted.

When minerals and communities collide

The International Energy Agency projects lithium demand for electric vehicle batteries will grow 40 times on current levels by 2040. Our study found 85% of the world’s lithium reserves and resources overlap with Indigenous peoples’ lands.

Demand for nickel and manganese is projected to grow 20-25 times. We found 75% of manganese and 57% of nickel reserves and resources also overlap with these lands.

Copper and iron ore are essential for power generation, as well as its transport, storage and use. Some scenarios predict an increase in copper demand of more than 250% by 2050. We found 66% of the world’s copper and 44% of iron reserves and resources overlap with Indigenous peoples lands globally.

Overall, across the 5,097 projects in our study, 54% are on or near Indigenous peoples’ lands. And almost one-third are on or near lands over which Indigenous peoples are recognised as having control or influence for conservation purposes.

Free, prior and informed consent

Last year, Indigenous groups and from around the world signed a declaration calling on climate negotiators at the COP26 United Nations Climate Change Conference to commit to sourcing transition minerals more responsibly.

They also called on governments and corporations to obtain the “free, prior and informed consent” of Indigenous peoples in decisions that affect them.

This type of consent is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It means Indigenous peoples should be able to accept or reject mining on their traditional lands, and to negotiate conditions such as protecting natural and cultural heritage.

Mining has hugely complex repercussions and can cause severe harms to societies, the environment and human rights. Consultation and consent processes take time. Companies and governments seeking to extract resources in haste are likely to fail to meaningfully engage with communities.

If new mining projects are fast-tracked, there is a huge risk of corners being cut. Without proper consultation and legal protections, the future supply of transition minerals could put Indigenous peoples’ lands at greater risk.

Read more:
Critical minerals are vital for renewable energy. We must learn to mine them responsibly

Weak laws must be strengthened

Australia has a shocking track record in protecting Indigenous heritage and obtaining consent.

In May 2020, Rio Tinto destroyed 46,000 year old Aboriginal rock shelters to mine iron ore, against the wishes of traditional owners, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples.

The traditional owners said the destruction was a tragedy for their people, all Australians and humanity. Alarmingly, the destruction was legal.

Last week, responding to a federal parliamentary inquiry into the Juukan Gorge incident, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said the destruction of the rock shelters was “completely wrong”. She acknowledged the massive power imbalance when traditional owners negotiated with mining companies, and the lack of resources they can draw on.

Plibersek said legal reform is urgently needed to stop such destruction happening again. In this vein, the Commonwealth has signed an agreement with the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance to co-design new cultural heritage laws.

Initiatives such as Dhawura Ngilan (Remembering Country) set a collective vision for best-practice heritage standards and legislation. Companies and investors should apply these protocols while our laws catch up.

In the meantime, other heritage sites in Western Australia are threatened by existing deveopment approvals. And the new Aboriginal Cultural Act still vests the minister with ultimate power to decide the fate of Aboriginal heritage.

Indigenous leaders remain deeply concerned that tragic incidents such as Juukan Gorge could happen again.

Read more:
WA’s new Aboriginal Heritage Act keeps mining interests ahead of the culture and wishes of Traditional Owners

What does the future hold?

To avoid a dual climate and cultural catastrophe, First Nations groups in Australia and elsewhere are joining forces and making their voices heard on the world stage.

At this year’s COP27 climate conference, the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change hosted an Indigenous pavilion in the “blue zone”, where advocates gather to network and discuss important issues. Such global First Nations solidarity is becoming vital in the fight against climate change and achieving a just energy transition.

Indigenous peoples must also have access to the latest data and information – including what future mineral wealth lies on their lands. This is one practical step towards addressing power imbalances.

Solutions to the climate crisis must be found, and energy transition minerals are an important part of the puzzle. However, First Nations aspirations for maintaining the natural and cultural integrity of their lands and territories, and participating in decisions about mining, must be at the forefront.

Read more:
What climate change activists can learn from First Nations campaigns against the fossil fuel industry

Deanna is chief investigator of an ARC Linkage grant on public-private inquiries in mining; member of the International Council of Mining and Metals (expert review panel; and trustee and member of the international advisory council for the Institute of Human Rights and Business. She is Director of the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining at The University of Queensland.

John Owen is a co-investigator of an ARC Linkage grant on public-private inquiries in mining. He is an Honorary Professor with the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining at the University of Queensland and Visiting Professor with the Centre for Development Support at the University of the Free State.

Kado Muir is a traditional owner and native title holder in the deserts of Western Australia. He is chair of the National Native Council and co-chair of the First Nations Heritage Protection Alliance. Kado is a two way knowledge practitioner as custodian of Ngalia cultural heritage and traditional ecological knowledge merged with his anthropological training he is a leading Australian ethnoecologist.

– ref. 54% of projects extracting clean energy minerals overlap with Indigenous lands, research reveals – https://theconversation.com/54-of-projects-extracting-clean-energy-minerals-overlap-with-indigenous-lands-research-reveals-195438

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Niland, Lecturer in Early Childhood, University of Sydney

The decision about whether to send a child to school “early” or “hold them back” can be a tortuous one for families who have a child born in the first half of the year.

So a recent New South Wales proposal that all children should start school in the year they turn six may seem very helpful for parents, taking the guesswork out.

But if we are going to have stricter rules around when children start school, we need to make sure it does not harm those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

A plan to raise the starting age

NSW Education Minister Sarah Mitchell recently suggested all children should start school the year they turn six.

Currently, children in NSW can start school the year they turn five if their birthday is before July 31, and must be enrolled before they turn six.

This means that a kindergarten class (the first year of school in NSW) may have children aged from four and a half to six years. This large age span, combined with developmental differences within any age group of young children, present many challenges for teachers and schools.

Cut-offs in other states differ, which only adds to the confusion. In the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria it is April 30, in South Australia it is May 1, in Queensland and the Northern Territory it is June 30.

In Tasmania, a child who has turned five on or by January 1 must start their first year of schooling.

‘Hold them back’

As researchers in early childhood education we want to caution against simply raising the school starting age or creating blanket rules.

It has become popular for parents of boys in particular to “hold them back,” so they start school in the year they turn six. But this is not an option for many families.

Research from Australia and overseas shows families living in high-income areas are more likely to hold their children back.

We also know families living in low-income areas are more likely to send their children to school sooner rather than later. Not only is access to early childhood education in their area a problem, it means they no longer have to pay costly childcare fees.

So a decision about whether or not a child is “ready” is largely related to the household budget.

A fifth of children start school behind

Federal education department data shows more than 20% of children start school developmentally vulnerable. This means they are behind in milestones such as language and cognitive, emotional or social development. Only 54.8% are regarded as “developmentally on track”.
We know children who start school developmentally behind are likely to be from socio-economically disadvantaged areas.

This disparity needs to be addressed if we want children to start school on a level playing field, whatever their age.

The importance of early learning

This is why good quality, affordable, and accessible early childhood education is so important. But again here, access is not equal.

Read more:
New study finds Australia’s preschool expansion ‘has not better prepared’ kids for school

Education experts recommend children have two years of quality preschool before starting school.

But most Australian states only fund one year, although NSW and Victoria have recently announced plans for two. The ACT is also moving towards two years for all children.

Currently, “childcare deserts” – where there are more than three children for each available place – are more likely to be in low-income and rural and regional areas. Services in these areas are also more likely to be operating below minimum quality standards than more advantaged areas.

We also know that children living in areas of disadvantage are less likely to go to preschool (called kinder in Victoria).

Play versus ‘ready for school’

Why is preschool so important? High-quality, play-based early childhood education lays down foundations that give children the best chance of educational success.

Play is children’s natural way of learning. It’s what builds the positive dispositions we all need in our professional and personal lives – curiosity, flexibility, problem-solving, confidence and resilience.

Play provides children with a space to explore, discover and build relationships. It helps them develop their motor skills, language, emotional regulation, and social skills.

But this can be overshadowed by a focus on “school readinesss”. This leads to prioritising a narrow range of skills like learning letters and numbers, rather than building children’s confidence and independence.

A good idea that needs more support

So, school at six is good idea, but it needs to be supported by free, high-quality, play-based early childhood education that is available to all children.

And this will require significant investment from governments.

Marianne Fenech receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the NSW Department of Education.

Amanda Niland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A push to raise the school starting age to 6 sounds like good news for parents, but there’s a catch – https://theconversation.com/a-push-to-raise-the-school-starting-age-to-6-sounds-like-good-news-for-parents-but-theres-a-catch-189624

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

After leading the Australian Labor Party to its first federal election victory in 23 years, Gough Whitlam wasted no time.

The Tuesday after his election on December 2 1972, he formed an interim two-man cabinet – a duumvirate – with his deputy Lance Barnard, and set about changing the nation.

Modestly, he took only 13 portfolios, while Barnard got 14. The pair governed the country for two weeks until the results of the election were formally declared and a full ministry sworn in. None of this, however, was secret.

The Whitlam government’s enthusiasm for reform has left a lasting legacy. It introduced universal health insurance. It made tertiary education free. It lifted pensions. It abolished conscription. It established diplomatic relations with China. It began the process to recognise Indigenous land rights.

But it is also generally remembered for poor economic management. Many would regard this perception as the main reason Labor, having won a second election in May 1974, was trounced in December 1975.

Read more:
Australian politics explainer: Gough Whitlam’s dismissal as prime minister

Whitlam himself admitted his “preoccupations and predilections lay beyond the narrower field of economic theory”.

Certainly the Whitlam government’s economic performance was far from perfect. But it deserves a better reputation than it has. Fifty years on, we can now see how much the circumstances of the time coloured perceptions.

Economic growth

Campaigning in 1972, Whitlam scoffed at the 3% annual economic growth achieved under the incumbent McMahon government. He aspired to achieving 6-7%. But he ended up actually achieving less than 3%.

We can now see this wasn’t the failure it seemed at the time. The growth rates of the 1950s and 1960s were atypical, and set unrealistic expectations. Since federation, in fact, average annual economic growth has been 3%.

A time of crisis

Like two other Labor governments – that of James Scullin in 1929 and Kevin Rudd in 2007 – Whitlam had the bad luck of taking office just before a large global economic downturn.

This was precipitated by the 1973 oil crisis, when Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations refused to sell oil to the United States and nations that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war.

Global oil prices tripled, supercharging inflation and weakening economic activity, creating the conditions for “stagflation” (inflation with stagnating growth).

Inflation

Inflation peaked at almost 18% during the Whitlam years. It had been higher – almost 24% in 1951, under the Menzies government – and it had started climbing before Whitlam was elected. This was also due partly to global factors and partly to the McMahon government spending big to curry favour with voters.

Unlike the Hawke-Keating government, which kept union demands for higher wages in check in exchange for “social wage” improvements, Whitlam failed to convince the unions to curb their wage demands. This made stagnation worse.

But his government did take steps to fight inflation. It revalued the Australian dollar and raised interest rates. It established a Prices Justification Tribunal to discourage large companies from raising prices.

By the end of its term inflation was declining – though it was not until after the Reserve Bank adopted inflation targeting in the early 1990s that it was really back under control.

Employment

The unemployment rate rose – but perceptions of the severity of that rise were also coloured by comparisons with the historically low rates of the 1950s and 1960s.

At the end of 1975 the unemployment rate was 4.6% – less than the 5% long-term average.

Budget spending

Spending under the Whitlam government rose to its highest share of GDP since World War II. At the time, the opposition attributed this to waste and extravagance.

But no government since has returned spending levels to pre-Whitlam levels. This suggests the higher spending has mostly gone to things that are popular with the public.

The budget balance moved into deficit. This was unsurprising as the economy slowed under the impact of the oil shock.

This deficit no longer stands out, given those incurred in subsequent economic crises – the early-1990s recession, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the COVID-19 recession. It’s also worth remembering that some of the subsequent surpluses reflected the sale of public assets such as Telstra.

The start of economic reform

In some ways, the Whitlam government represents the start of the economic reform process that peaked during the Hawke-Keating years (1983-96).

Whitlam was sceptical of protectionism and started cutting tariffs. This was partly to reduce inflation by lowering import prices, but there was also a long-term goal to develop a more efficient economy.

His government implemented a new Trade Practices Act and reformed government entities such as tthe Post-Master General’s Department, which was replaced by the more commercially focused Telecom Australia and Australia Post.

The Whitlam government’s economic performance was certainly not perfect. But it deserves a better reputation than it has.

John Hawkins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Half a century on, it’s time to reassess the Whitlam government’s economic legacy – https://theconversation.com/half-a-century-on-its-time-to-reassess-the-whitlam-governments-economic-legacy-195651

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Australia has only a year or less to get itself ready to vote on one of the most significant constitutional referendums in its history – to insert an Indigenous Voice into the constitution.

And it has to be said that, despite years of discussion, we are as yet in a poor place to give the Voice its best chance of life.

The government is still dodging around how precise it will be with detail of the model before the vote.

The conservative side of politics is fragmenting, with the Nationals (not themselves united) declaring their opposition on Monday.

Some Indigenous leaders are turning on each other.

This is a vote that is too important to be let fail. Yet you would be an optimist – despite the good support it is getting in the opinion polls – if at the moment you rated its prospects at 50-50.

Those prospects will only be maximised if the Voice can be sold in positive terms that unify the nation to the extent possible. As a change that gives First Nations people a formal say in policy in a way that improves it. A change that helps with the Closing the Gap outcomes that are falling short (including adults in prison, children in out-of-home care, and suicides), as shown in the latest report released this week.

If the debate becomes dominated by the negative aspects of identity politics, votes will be lost.

Indigenous leader Noel Pearson said in his first 2022 Boyer lecture, titled “Rcognition”: “Mutual recognition will enable us to acknowledge three stories: the Ancient Indigenous Heritage which is Australia’s foundation, the British institutions built upon it, and the adorning gift of multicultural migration.

“These three stories will make us one: Australians.

“Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians is not a project of identity politics, it is Australia’s longest-standing and unresolved project for justice, unity and inclusion.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told the ABC on Wednesday the vote will be in the second half of next year, with two questions put: to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution, and to enshrine “a representative body of Indigenous people who are able to be consulted about matters that directly affect them”. He has already released draft wording.

The government rejects criticism that there is inadequate detail on the shape of the Voice. It’s right in one sense – there are hundreds of pages of detail on the record, notably in a report prepared for the former government by leading Indigenous figures Marcia Langton and Tom Calma.

But we do not know the exact model the government will embrace. Pressed on this, Albanese said the way the Voice will work “will be determined by legislation once the constitution is amended”. This won’t be adequate for many undecided voters.

Read more:
Could the Nationals’ refusal to support a Voice to Parliament derail the referendum?

Frank Brennan, a Jesuit priest and academic, brings a lawyer’s eyes and a long record on Indigenous issues to the Voice debate.

In a speech in Melbourne last week, Brennan laid out “difficult, practical and complex questions that need to be addressed”. These were: “Can we design a Voice which does not divide the nation? Can we design a Voice which doesn’t mean you’re going off to the High Court every second day? Can we design a Voice which doesn’t clog up the system of government?”

Brennan’s questions give some indication why we need reassuring detail from the government before the vote.

It is unfortunate, though inevitable, that there is division among Indigenous leaders over the Voice.

The Nationals’ opposition has been led by their new Indigenous senator, Jacinta Price from the Northern Territory, a long-time critic. Price, a former deputy mayor of Alice Springs, objects to one section of the community being carved out. Some other Indigenous critics object on the grounds they believe a treaty should have priority.

Pearson is a powerful and eloquent advocate and orator, who over the years has dealt with both sides of politics. But his attack on Price, whom he essentially labelled a puppet of right-wing think tanks, is both disrespectful and unhelpful.

Influential Indigenous figures, like politicians, have an obligation to keep the tone of this debate as measured as they can.

Peter Dutton has the Liberal Party in a holding position, saying it doesn’t have enough information on which to determine a stance.

This is true but also a fig leaf. Dutton is in a no-win situation, with a divided party. The conservatives want to be on the “no” side and they are being encouraged by John Howard. The progressive Liberals want to back the “yes” case. If the party allowed Liberals to make their own choices, that would leave some dissatisfied too.

Read more:
Albanese insists Voice will help ‘close the gap’, as divisions flare in Nationals

Whatever the Liberals decide, the bottom line is the yes case won’t get bipartisan support, meaning it will have to defy history to be successful.

Under changes to the Referendum Act the government introduced in parliament on Thursday, new rules are being set for the actual conduct of the referendum.

The government won’t directly fund “yes” and “no” campaigns, saying the referendum “should be organised and funded by the Australian community”. Households won’t get the usual pamphlet outlining the yes and no cases. We’ve moved to the digital age, the government says.

But the legislation will “allow the Commonwealth to fund educational campaigns to promote voters’ understanding of referendums and the referendum proposal”. Critics will see this as a way of funding the yes campaign while not having to provide money for the other side.

It was the Whitlam government – elected 50 years ago on Friday – that established the first national elected Indigenous body.

On November 23 1973, Gough Whitlam delivered a national broadcast, in which he said that the following day “a most important election” would take place. “Nothing like it has been held before.” All Aboriginal people were entitled to vote for the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC), he said. The government wanted this body “to be a forum for the expression of Aboriginal opinion”.

The story of NACC and its successors carries a warning – relations between these bodies and governments seldom run smoothly.

If the Voice is established, its constitutional status will mean it can’t be scrapped by a later government. But its detail will be approved by parliament and subject to change by another parliament. There are also other ways a government can emasculate a body to which it is hostile.

Read more:
A constitutional Voice to Parliament: ensuring parliament is in charge, not the courts

That makes it imperative to get as much common ground as possible on the Voice, even under the umbrella of divided views on whether we should have it. This provides another argument for the pre-referendum release of fine print.

It’s vital that, if the Voice is passed, its structure and modus operandi give it the best chance of becoming a strong and lasting institution.

The ultimate test of the Voice would be that it was effectively delivering for Indigenous people in two or three decades, whatever the complexion of the government at the time.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: To have the best chance of success, the Voice must be sold to voters as a positive, unifying story – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-to-have-the-best-chance-of-success-the-voice-must-be-sold-to-voters-as-a-positive-unifying-story-195733

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Coral Gartner, Director, NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame, The University of Queensland

This week’s announcement of a raft of new tobacco control measures – including banning menthol products and proposing health warnings on individual cigarettes – are important and welcome.

We applaud Australian Health Minister Mark Butler’s aim to re-establish Australia as a global leader in tobacco control alongside fellow OECD nations, such as New Zealand and Canada.

His announcement comes a decade after Australia implemented world-leading laws that required all tobacco products to be sold in plain packs.

But there is still scope for more comprehensive action to reduce the burden smoking imposes on Australia and particularly on Australia’s Indigenous peoples.

Read more:
We can cut Indigenous smoking and save lives – here’s how

We can look to New Zealand

Aotearoa-New Zealand offers a useful comparison. The NZ parliament aims to pass legislation in mid-December that takes a different approach to the measures Butler outlined this week.

The Aotearoa package of measures were developed in close consultation with Māori leaders. These include making cigarettes non-addictive, greatly reducing the number of tobacco retailers, and creating a smoke-free generation.

These policies focus on fundamental drivers of smoking. The measures will also affect everyone in the same way, thus have great potential to reduce pervasive inequities in smoking rates.

Let’s see how Australia’s plans compare with policy reforms under way in New Zealand and Canada.

Read more:
Forget tobacco industry arguments about choice. Here’s what young people think about NZ’s smokefree generation policy

New health warnings

Graphic images on packets of cigarettes were introduced in Australia 16 years ago, and these warnings have encouraged quitting. But they have lost their initial impact.

New and more varied warnings will refresh this existing policy as will introducing pack inserts providing “how to quit” information, which have been used in Canada since 2012.

In 2023, Canada is set to become the first country to require health warnings to be printed directly on the cigarette stick.

Butler proposes adopting this measure for Australia, but with the addition of making the cigarette paper an unattractive colour, such as slimy green or faecal yellow-brown.

Like plain packaging, this measure will reduce the appeal of smoking and present smoking as unambiguously harmful and unattractive.

Tightening up marketing

Standardising pack size, filters, and banning terms such as “light” and “organic” in brand names will further limit misleading tobacco marketing.

Likewise, measures that eliminate gimmicks – such as flavoured “crushballs” inserted in filters that release a burst of flavour when crushed, or packs that include “bonus” cigarettes to offer a better deal – will further limit how tobacco companies promote their products.

Banning some flavouring additives, particularly menthol, will reduce the appeal of smoking for some consumers.

When Canada banned menthol cigarettes federally in 2017, this measure increased quitting among people who smoked menthol cigarettes.

Read more:
The US FDA has moved to ban menthol cigarettes. Australia should do that and more

More transparency

Tobacco companies will need to disclose tobacco sales volumes and pricing, as required in Aotearoa-New Zealand.

Companies will also need to disclose their advertising, promotion and sponsorship activities, as well as product ingredients and emissions.

These moves all reveal important tobacco company activities that undermine public health efforts.

They will also provide key information about what is in tobacco products, as required by the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Vaping ads to be banned

The final measure will apply tobacco advertising bans to vaping products. This policy will reduce inappropriate promotion of these products, including to young people.

This measure is in addition to, and separate from, the current review of Australia’s regulation of nicotine vaping products. Addressing the rising problem of vaping among young people is a key concern and efforts to reduce youth use are urgently needed.

Read more:
We asked over 700 teens where they bought their vapes. Here’s what they said

There’s more to do

These advances in Australian tobacco control policy align with measures implemented a decade ago in Canada or that are soon to start. We welcome such measures that make smoking less appealing and encourage quitting.

However, bigger jumps are required if Australia is to lead on eradicating the harms smoking causes. These initial measures announced also do not have a clear equity focus, such as the measures being implemented in Aotearoa-New Zealand. These have a bolder ambition of rapidly reducing smoking among both Māori and non-Māori peoples to less than 5% by 2025.

Aotearoa-New Zealand’s proposed law will fundamentally change tobacco products by reducing the nicotine content to non-addictive levels. The law also dramatically reduces tobacco availability by decreasing the number of tobacco retailers by at least 90%, and will make it illegal to sell tobacco to anyone born after December 31 2008.

Modelling indicates that Aotearoa-New Zealand’s package of measures are likely to achieve their goal of rapidly phasing out tobacco smoking.

Read more:
New Zealand’s ‘tobacco endgame’ law will be a world first for health – here’s what the modelling shows us

These measures go far beyond those Butler proposes for Australia. In particular, removing the product’s addictiveness and reducing availability means casual experimentation among young people will not lead to addiction, and quitting will become much easier for people who currently smoke.

The package of measures announced this week will continue declines in smoking following the “tried and tested” strategy of incrementally ratcheting up restrictions on tobacco products.

In contrast, the Aotearoa approach is a “Tobacco Moonshot” that aims to finish the job of ending the tobacco smoking epidemic in Aotearoa-New Zealand.

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Andrew Waa, University of Otago, for helpful comments and suggestions.

Coral Gartner receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council. She is an editor for Tobacco Control, A BMJ journal.

Janet Hoek receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the NZ Cancer Society. She has also received funding from the Royal Society Marsden Fund. She is a member of the Health Coalition Aotearoa’s Smokefree Expert Advisory Group and sits on several other advisory groups whose work supports the NZ Aotearoa Government’s goal of realising a smokefree nation by 2025.

Richard Edwards receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the NZ Cancer Society, and from the National Institute of Health (USA). He has also received funding from the Royal Society Marsden Fund. He is a member of the Health Coalition Aotearoa’s Smokefree Expert Advisory Group and sits on several other advisory groups whose work supports the NZ Aotearoa Government’s goal of realising a smokefree nation by 2025.

– ref. Banning menthol cigarettes and more health warnings are only the start. Australia could look to NZ for how to do tobacco control – https://theconversation.com/banning-menthol-cigarettes-and-more-health-warnings-are-only-the-start-australia-could-look-to-nz-for-how-to-do-tobacco-control-195710

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharynne Hamilton, Senior Research Fellow, Co-Head, Aboriginal Health and Wellbeing, Telethon Kids Institute

The latest Family Matters report reveals a grim lack of progress to eliminate the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care.

The report – released by the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, a national non-governmental peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children – reveals:

• there are there more than 22,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care

• our children are being removed as infants and not being placed with kin

• they are staying in care long-term and without reunification plans.

The report notes significant spending at the statutory end of the system (where removals take place). It highlights underspending on family support that could avoid such removals.

And there is inconsistent resourcing and support for Aboriginal community controlled organisations. As a result, we’re not seeing positive outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in state care.

The report calls for funding and support for Aboriginal community controlled organisations (sometimes abbreviated as ACCOs). They are best placed to lead reform and to make decisions about the safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

Read more:
Thirteen years after ‘Sorry’, too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are still being removed from their homes

Disappointing findings

Alarmingly, the report notes:

the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care has continued to increase at a higher rate than the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in cases of substantiated child neglect or abuse.

This suggests our children are being removed with insufficient evidence or cause. (A “substantiated” case means authorities found cause for removal after investigating the case).

The report also found that when in care, our children are more likely than their non-Indigenous peers to suffer physical, sexual or emotional abuse. They are equally likely to experience neglect. The very system set up to provide care and protection perpetrates abuse.

Unacceptable, but not new

Repeated inquiries have reported abuse and poor outcomes experienced by children in state care. Despite this, there’s been little to no impact on policy or practice.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children continue to be removed at a heartbreakingly young ages. Nationally, our children under 12 months are being removed at ten times the rate of non-Indigenous children and there are increasing fears of future “stolen generations”.

The report also found Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children spend more time in care on permanent orders and are adopted at high rates. Reunification rates are low.

Thousands of our children are in long-term care arrangements with no identified family reunification goals. But where our children were reunified, more than 84% did not return to care in the first 12 months.

The report found incarcerated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are at increased risk of infant removal.

We don’t know how many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers are involved with both the criminal justice and child protection systems. That information is not collected. But without it, it’s impossible to plan services, programs and facilities to support incarcerated women to maintain connection with their children.

Once removed from their families, our children are disproportionately being placed with non-Indigenous carers.

This practice continues to increase around Australia, despite every state and territory having committed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle (which prioritises placement of children with kin).

The report notes Aboriginal community controlled organisations are frequently working to support families while simultaneously navigating “unhelpful government systems”.

Emerging work on the experiences of community workers advocating for families with child protection involvement finds many of these workers are operating in risk-averse environments, and experience marginalisation and oppression.

These barriers hinder the chance of supporting families and must be better understood and avoided.

A last resort

The removal of our children from their families must only happen as a last resort. The same can be said of incarceration of pregnant Aboriginal women and mothers with children, and the placement of our children with non-Indigenous carers.

Without significant sector reform, the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care will continue to balloon. History tells us they will likely suffer poor life outcomes.

Central to successful reform is supporting and resourcing Aboriginal community controlled organisations, which have a track record of successfully delivering community programs. Community ownership and control over decision-making is key.

The report calls on us not to look away, saying:

We urge you to remember that every number you see is a child with a name and dreams for their future. These children are separated from their families in numbers that have not been in seen history.

It is imperative our children grow up knowing who they are, where they belong, and are immersed in their kin, culture and language.

Read more:
Attending school every day counts – but kids in out-of-home care are missing out

Sharynne Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. New report reveals grim lack of progress to cut overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids in out-of-home-care – https://theconversation.com/new-report-reveals-grim-lack-of-progress-to-cut-overrepresentation-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-kids-in-out-of-home-care-195355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

There has been much more counting for the Victorian upper house since Saturday night, when under 30% had been counted in most of the eight regions. Five members are elected per region for a total of 40 seats, with the quota for each region at one-sixth of the vote or 16.7%.

The upper house still uses the group voting ticket (GVT) system, which allows parties to order the preferences of everyone who votes for that party above the line. On these artificial 100% preference flows, parties can win using preference spirals from very low vote shares.

Read more:
How Victorian Labor’s failure on upper house electoral reform undermines democracy

At least 60% of enrolled voters have now been counted in all regions, with a final turnout likely around 90%. Additional votes are more likely to skew left. I expect final results for the upper house by the week after next, when buttons are pressed to electronically distribute preferences.

The ABC’s summary page for the upper house, based on using its upper house calculator, has Labor on 15 of the 40 seats, the Coalition 15, the Greens three, Legalise Cannabis three and one each for Animal Justice, the Shooters, Labour DLP and One Nation. This calculator assumes all votes are above the line; about 10% were below the line.

If these results are the final results, the left parties (Labor, Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Animal Justice) would have 22 of the 40 upper house seats, to 18 for the right. Labor would need both the Greens and Legalise Cannabis to pass legislation opposed by the right. I will look at these results region by region.

In Northeastern Metro (71% counted), Labor has 2.06 quotas, the Liberals 1.86 and the Greens 0.62. After preferences, the Greens win with 1.02 quotas, and their margin would be higher with below the line (BTL) votes factored in.

In Northern Metro (60% counted), Labor has 2.06 quotas, the Liberals 1.13, the Greens 1.10, the Victorian Socialists 0.30, the DLP 0.28 and Fiona Patten 0.23. Left-wing preferences flow to Patten, not the Socialists. Former Labor MP Adem Somyurek, the DLP’s lead candidate, defeats Patten with 1.05 quotas, but Patten would be doing better on BTL votes.

In Southeastern Metro (62% counted), Labor has 2.39 quotas, the Liberals 1.65, the Greens 0.41, and Legalise Cannabis 0.30. On other left preferences, Legalise Cannabis beats both Labor and the Greens, then wins this seat on Labor and Greens preferences. The Liberals are just ahead of the Liberal Democrats for the final seat with 1.01 quotas, thought this lead would be wider with BTLs.

In Southern Metro (68% counted), the Liberals have 2.24 quotas, Labor 1.80 and the Greens 0.90. Both the Greens and Labor reach quota on other left preferences, with Labor well ahead of a Sustainable Australia preference spiral to claim the last seat with 1.08 quotas.

In Western Metro (64% counted), Labor has 2.25 quotas, the Liberals 1.53, the Greens 0.45, the DLP 0.31, Legalise Cannabis 0.25 and the Socialists 0.21. Legalise Cannabis surpasses the Greens on Scoialists and other left preferences and wins on Greens preferences, with the Liberals beating the DLP for the final seat.

In Eastern Victoria (69% counted), the Coalition has 2.22 quotas, Labor 1.60, the Greens 0.47 and Legalise Cannabis 0.24. Labor wins a second seat on Greens preferences, while the Shooters win from 0.18 initial quotas by preference spiral.

In Northern Victoria (71% counted), the Coalition has 2.20 quotas, Labor 1.68, the Greens 0.40, the Shooters 0.31, Legalise Cannabis 0.27 and One Nation 0.22. Both One Nation and Animal Justice (0.09 quotas) surpass Labor to win seats by preference spiral.

In Western Victoria (72% counted), Labor has 2.15 quotas, the Coalition 1.67, the Greens 0.49 and Legalise Cannabis 0.29. On other left preferences, Legalise Cannabis moves 0.05 quotas ahead of the Greens, then wins the final seat on Greens preferences, with the Coalition winning a second seat.

Lower house: Labor could win 56 out of 88 seats

For the lower house, the ABC is currently calling 51 of the 88 seats for Labor, 26 for the Coalition and four Greens, with seven still undecided. Labor is leading in four of the seven undecided seats, and behind by just five votes in Pakenham.

Late counting is favouring Labor, so they could win these five seats and get 56 total in the lower house, an increase of one on their 2018 landslide. The Coalition is likely to win Mornington and Narracan when this deferred election is held.

US Georgia Senate runoff next Wednesday AEDT

The United States November 8 midterm elections are not quite finished, as the Georgia Senate contest has gone to a runoff next Tuesday, with polls closing at 11am Wednesday AEDT.

At the November 8 election, Democrat Raphael Warnock won 49.4% and Republican Herschel Walker 48.5%. A Libertarian, with 2.1%, prevented a majority for either candidate, and so the runoff. Polls for the runoff suggest a close contest.

Democrats currently lead the Senate by 50-49. Even if Warnock loses, they will still control the Senate on Vice President Kamala Harris’ casting vote. But this election is important because Democrats face a very difficult Senate map in the 2024 elections.

Of the 33 Senate seats up for election in 2024, 23 are Democrat-held and just ten Republican-held. Democrat-held seats include three states – West Virginia, Montana and Ohio – that Donald Trump won easily in both 2016 and 2020. Democrats need to win Georgia next week to have a realistic chance of keeping the Senate after the 2024 elections.

Republicans likely won the House of Representatives on November 8 by a margin of 222-213 over Democrats, the exact reverse of Democrats’ 222-213 majority after the 2020 elections. Republicans lead the overall House popular vote by 50.7-47.8 according to the Cook Political Report.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Labor, Greens and Legalise Cannabis likely to have combined majority in Victorian upper house – https://theconversation.com/labor-greens-and-legalise-cannabis-likely-to-have-combined-majority-in-victorian-upper-house-195439

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Byron, Lecturer in Psychology, University of Wollongong

Now that we’ve hit December, many people looking on their social media feeds will be seeing end-of-year listening roundups like Instafest, Spotify Wrapped and Apple Music Replay. These roundups analyse your music listening for the year to generate a fancy, shareable social media post, and they sometimes have some fascinating insights about our listening.

We increasingly live in a social media world where now is prioritised – with the constant torrent of new posts and tweets and reels and Tiktoks, trying to find something from even a couple of weeks ago can be a challenge – especially because our memories are not so accurate.

This means part of the fascination with these listening roundups is that they’re a stocktake of the year. But also, they have insights into the way that we listen to music that might surprise some people.

We don’t get tired of our favourite songs

In the last decade or so, the singles charts in Australia have moved from being based on sales, to being based largely on plays on streaming services like Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal.

The charts have become increasingly static as a result of being based on plays – for example, Heat Waves by Glass Animals is currently at #13 in its 103rd week in the ARIA charts. Because the charts are based on plays, this fairly clearly shows that a lot of people continue to keep Heat Waves on their streaming playlists years later – they’re seemingly not bored of the song yet.

Part of what explains the continued endurance of such songs in people’s playlists is what social psychologist Robert Zajonc dubbed the Mere Exposure Effect. In a research program started in the 1960s, Zajonc has found consistently that our preference for stimuli is influenced by our familiarity with those stimuli – in other words, we are inclined to like what’s familiar. Chances are that, if we know a song fairly well, we like it. And if we like it, we don’t remove it from our playlists.

Of course, this isn’t the whole story. We obviously often get sick of songs, and we’re not purely robots programmed to like things based on familiarity. Mind you, if I look at my listening stats for the year, my top artist – the one I listened to the most – turns out to be the Beatles.

This is a band in some of my earliest musical memories. Surely, decades after I first heard it, I should be very tired indeed of their song I’m So Tired – but it appears that I am not. Which means some people looking at their roundups might be surprised just how long some songs and artists actually have lasted in their playlists.

We love to remember our favourite music from the year

We human beings often don’t remember very much, when it comes down to it. In an 1885 book, German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus describes experiments he conducted on his memory, trying to remember a list of nonsense syllables (ZUG or KUS, etc.): he discovered the “forgetting curve”. An hour after learning the syllables, he could remember around 40%. Nine hours later, he could remember about 30%. Six days afterwards, his memory for the nonsense words was at about 20%, which is where it stayed afterwards.

And Ebbinghaus was deliberately trying to remember those nonsense syllables. Most of the time when you listen to music, you’re probably not even paying attention to it, let alone trying to remember it. Personally, my memory of what music I was listening to six days ago is definitely less than 20%! This might be one reason that we genuinely don’t realise that we’ve spent so much of the year listening to that Lizzo song.

In contrast, streaming service algorithms record every second you spend listening to music (not least because counting it up is a neat fact for all the social media posts we’re seeing right now).

We love different music for different situations

Research suggests that when the average person listens to music, they’re mostly wanting background music to accompany various tasks – driving, doing the dishes, exercising, studying, hanging out with friends, etc. However, when we think about the music we listen to, I suspect we often think about music we actively listen to – so sometimes the music that we passively listen to in our earbuds when nobody else can hear can be surprising.

Music is also inherently a social activity – it says something about how we relate to the broader society around us if we choose to listen to metal or to indie rock or K-pop; genres of music are usually related to subcultures and movements within society.

The tension between the two – that the music that is good at accompanying drudgery might not always be the music that expresses who we are – can lead to some interesting insights into other people when we look at their end-of-year roundups.

We love hooks

And of course, sometimes a song transcends social setting, where we can’t resist a hook even if we do find it to be a guilty pleasure. Hooks are those musical moments that stand out and are easily remembered – they’re most likely the bits that get stuck in our head, that we anticipate when we listen to the music, and they’re integral to pop music.

These days, producers like Max Martin carefully structure pop songs like Shake It Off by Taylor Swift to maximise the sheer amount of attention-grabbing musical moments, and we’re often powerless to resist getting them stuck in our heads after a few listens. Of course, if you’re a guy with long hair wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt, why would anyone suspect that you’re listening to Taylor Swift’s Anti-Hero in your earbuds?

One way to look at it is that “It’s me, hi, I’m the problem, it’s me” – one line in Anti-Hero by Taylor Swift, the current #1 single in Australia – is clearly a memorable hook for a lot of listeners. That hook meant people noticed the song, and they added it to a playlist or two. Where it stayed, becoming familiar, becoming a part of life.

Finally, because of our typically porous human memories, we often don’t realise how often things end up in our ears. And so, when that Iron Maiden t-shirt guy posts his Spotify Wrapped on social media, he’s as surprised as anyone else that Anti-Hero is up amongst his top songs, next to Run To The Hills.

This is perhaps what is interesting about such roundups – they give an insight into the everyday listening habits of our friends, about what they listen to when we’re not looking.

Timothy Byron ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Spotify Wrapped, Apple Music Replay and Instafest: what do end of year music wrap-ups say about our listening habits? – https://theconversation.com/spotify-wrapped-apple-music-replay-and-instafest-what-do-end-of-year-music-wrap-ups-say-about-our-listening-habits-195556

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Price, The Erdi Foundation Child Health Equity (COVID-19) Scholar, Centre for Community Child Health | Honorary, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne | Team Leader / Senior Research Officer, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

Bringing home a new baby can be one of the most exciting and stressful times in your life. A nurse might visit a couple of times, then other than routine check-ups at the nurse’s office, you’re largely on your own.

Some people have a particularly hard time with a new baby because the challenges of parenting come on top of existing adversity, such as financial hardship, or poor physical or mental health.

Experiencing adversity from when a baby is conceived can affect the child’s health and development as they grow older. So rather than stopping nurse visits a week or two after bringing a new baby home, we investigated whether extending these visits from pregnancy until children turned two made a difference.

The nurse visits focused on areas fundamental for children’s development: how a parent cares for and responds to their child, and their home environment.

We found home visits with nurses helps parenting and family relationships, and women’s mental health, wellbeing and confidence.

What happens when the nurse visits?

Sustained nurse home visiting provides intensive services in a family’s home during pregnancy and the first two years of the child’s life. During this time, the child’s brain develops more rapidly than any other time in their life.

Read more:
How do I know if my child is developing normally?

International studies of sustained nurse home visiting programs show they can help families with parenting, children’s behaviour and academic skills. However, most have only measured impacts up to when children turn three.

Programs differ depending on how they work to support families. They generally engage highly-trained nurses who can listen without judgement, offer practical, evidence-informed advice, and remind parents they’re doing a good job.

Our study

Our randomised controlled trial of right@home is Australia’s longest and largest trial of nurse home-visiting, starting in 2013.

The program supports parents with evidence-based techniques that promote parenting that responds to the child’s needs, safe homes, regular routines, and children’s learning and language development. The program starts in pregnancy and offers 25 home visits (60-90 minutes each) with a specially trained nurse until the children turn two.

The right@home program was designed for delivery through Australia’s existing child and family health nursing services, which are free for families with children from birth to school age. These existing services typically offer a handful of appointments (of around 20-40 minutes) that mostly take place in local clinics. Some also offer more intensive services.

We invited women into the right@home study if they were experiencing two or more factors that can make it more difficult to parent. These include having low social support, poor physical or emotional health, or no household employment. We found almost 40% of pregnant women experienced at least two of these factors.

In total, 722 women and families living across Victoria and Tasmania took part in the study. Half were randomly allocated (like tossing a coin) to receive the right@home program and half received their local child and family health nursing service.

Read more:
Parents have the biggest influence over their child’s language and emotional development

What did we find?

Researchers who were separate to the nurse teams interviewed the families twice a year (one at home and one by phone) until children started school.

When the right@home program ended (at children’s second birthdays), the evaluation showed it offered benefits over and above the usual services. Parents had more confidence and skills in caring for their children, responding sensitively and providing a nurturing and stimulating home.

This pattern continued. At three years, parents who received the right@home program reported benefits to their mental health, wellbeing, and self-confidence.

Our latest paper, published in PLOS ONE, shows that right@home offered lasting impacts to four and five years, which is two and three years after the program ended.

Some 5-10% more families had regular mealtimes, bedtimes and bedtime routines by the time the children turned five.

Around 9% more women reported very good health and parenting confidence. The proportions of women experiencing stress, and emotional abuse from an intimate partner were 7% and 11% lower, respectively.

There were additional benefits for children’s and women’s mental health, parenting, and women’s wellbeing, quality of life and relationship with their child. These impacts were evident for families regardless of where they lived across the seven regional and metropolitan areas in the two states.

Read more:
Having problems with your kid’s tantrums, bed-wetting or withdrawal? Here’s when to get help

Levelling the playing field for kids

A goal of the program is to address the challenging circumstances that disrupt parenting and affect children’s health and development.

If Australia did this, and provided support according to need, we could reduce children’s poor developmental outcomes by 50%-70%.

Providing equitable support is especially important as we emerge from the COVID pandemic, which has disproportionately affected families already experiencing adversity.

Almost no other public health program delivered during the early years has evidence of such a broad range of gains.

Our economic evaluation of right@home at three years showed delivering these benefits through the right@home program costs A$7,700 extra per family compared with the usual service.

Research from the US shows the benefits of similar programs accrue for families and taxpayers over a child’s lifetime, producing positive returns on investment, from improved mental health and more employment, among other benefits.

Australia is fortunate to have nationwide child and family health nursing services. These are the perfect platform for delivering an extended program like right@home. When so few programs make a difference for families experiencing adversity, we should maximise the reach of those that do.

Diana Harris, Lead for Knowledge Translation at the Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth, coauthored this article.

Read more:
Stressed about managing your child’s behaviour? Here are four things every parent should know

right@home is supported by the state governments of Victoria and Tasmania, the Ian Potter Foundation, Sabemo Trust, Sidney Myer fund, the Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation, and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 1079148). The MCRI administered the research grant for the study and provided infrastructural support to its staff but played no role in the conduct or analysis of the trial. Research at the MCRI is supported by the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program. SG was supported by NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (1155290).

The “right@home” sustained nurse home visiting trial is a research collaboration between the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY); the Translational Research and Social Innovation (TReSI) Group at Western Sydney University; and the Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH), which is a department of The Royal Children’s Hospital and a research group of Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. Ownership of the right@home implementation and support license, which is purchased by Australian state governments for roll out for fidelity support, is shared between institutes.

The MECSH home visiting program upon which right@home is based is trademarked and licenced by Western Sydney University and was developed by UNSW Australia. Western Sydney University is a member of the right@home consortium that receives funding from Australian state governments to support the implementation of the program. Western Sydney University also licenses the MECSH program to government and non-government providers of home visiting services in the UK and USA.

Sharon Goldfeld receives funding from ARC and NHMRC.

– ref. Why do nurse home visits stop a few weeks after giving birth? Extending them to 2 years benefits the whole family – https://theconversation.com/why-do-nurse-home-visits-stop-a-few-weeks-after-giving-birth-extending-them-to-2-years-benefits-the-whole-family-194643